A Saskatchewan man's sentence for assaulting his grandmother was quadrupled.

A Saskatchewan man's sentence for assaulting his grandmother was quadrupled.
Not a valid attachment ID.

Over the years, a man in his 70s from Saskatchewan has been punished more than twice as much for repeatedly sexually assaulting his grandchild.The dad was found guilty of historical sexual assault against his grandson in the initial case; he is only identified in court documents as TAM to preserve the victim's identity.The girl was repeatedly touched and fondled throughout the summers in Shellbrooke for seven years, beginning when she was five years old, according to testimony given to the court.On further counts pertaining to a different grandson, TAM was found not guilty.
Read more:

• Court of appeal rules taxpayers not on hook for deputy reeve's legal bills
• Sask. Appeal Court upholds thumbs-up emoji verdict in grain contract dispute
• Challenge to Saskatchewan's pronoun law gets its day in court

TAM was sentenced to two years, minus one day, of community service by Judge Hugh M. Harradence in provincial court. Among the requirements were abstinence from alcohol and narcotics, a ten-year ban on gun ownership, and participation in counselling and sex offender programs.Harradence clarified that he did not believe that issuing an order under the Sex Offender Registration Information Act (SOIRA) would benefit law enforcement or public safety.TAM challenged the conviction, claiming that the accusations were driven by a sizable inheritance he had inherited. His appeal was denied by the court.Citing the sentence as "demonstrably unfit," the Crown filed an appeal, which was granted.The Court of Appeal's ruling was written by Justice Neal W. Caldwell. Throughout the text, he cited R v. Friesen multiple times the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis of how sentencing guidelines in child sex assault cases are changing to emphasize trauma to child victims and take a child-centered, harm-based approach.He stated that the Crown in this instance was claiming what R v. Friesen ultimately amounted to: that sentencing judges understate the seriousness of child sexual offences when they fail to acknowledge the wrongness of the offences and the extent of the harm to children.According to Caldwell, the victim had worry, misery, loneliness, addiction, and sexual dysfunction as a result of the assaults, even though Harradence had viewed TAM acts as a lower-end form of sexual assault. According to the court, the assaults didn't cease until the child was old enough to understand that they were wrong and powerful enough to prevent them.Caldwell stated that TAM's offence was not "on the lower end of the gravity of child sexual abuse."In the ruling, Caldwell also pointed out that TAM was ineligible for sex offender training and that the terms of his sentence did not significantly alter his way of life or his ability to function in the community.According to Caldwell's ruling, "there is just no evidence to support holding that a conditional sentence order is a suitable punishment for an offender who has committed sexual offences against a grandchild on multiple occasions over a number of years."Rather, the Court of Appeal enforced an SOIRA order and modified TAM's sentence to four years in federal prison with a 1:1 credit for time served under the conditional sentence.

[attachment deleted by admin]