Brandon Harder
Regina Leader-Post
Former Saskatchewan educational assistant Stacey Duke will spend time behind bars after being found guilty of sexual crimes involving two teen boys.
But just how long the 40-year-old woman’s sentence will be is up to Court of King’s Bench Justice Neil Robertson, who heard lawyers argue about an appropriate sentence in a Regina courtroom on Monday.
In March, Duke went to trial after being charged with six offences. A jury found her guilty of all six.
Those were: two charges that in the fall of 2022 she invited two boys under the age of 18 to touch her for a sexual purpose (exploitation); two charges that she made explicit material available to the boys for the purpose of facilitating the exploitation; and two charges that she communicated electronically with the boys for the purpose of facilitating the exploitation.
At one time, both victims were students of Vibank Regional School where Duke once worked as an educational assistant. They cannot be identified due to a standard publication ban.
As a result, their names, specific ages and other information has been withheld.
On Monday, Crown prosecutor Cheyenne Esmond asked Robertson to impose an overall sentence of six years. Defence lawyer Jessica Bihun suggested that an overall sentence of 26 months would be appropriate.
Robertson will have plenty to consider as he decides what is suitable, given the complexities of the case and the fact that juries do not present reasons for their findings. Lawyers suggested the judge may need to make certain factual determinations before rendering a decision.
The judge will also need to wrestle with what’s known as the Kienapple principle, which holds that a person cannot be convicted of more than one offence for the same act. Bihun argued Duke should only be sentenced on the exploitation convictions, suggesting the conduct relating to the other offences was essentially part of the exploitation.
Esmond suggested Duke’s moral responsibility is high, argued there was evidence of grooming, and pointed to the jury’s finding that Duke was in a position of trust or authority over the victims as an aggravating factor. She also suggested the gravity of the offences was high.
Esmond read into the record a victim impact statement submitted by the parents of one of the victims.
“As parents, you spend your life raising your children with the hopes and dreams of having an excellent future for them,” the prosecutor read.
However, Duke’s actions “destroyed those hopes and dreams for us,” the statement continued, citing tolls both emotional and financial that forced the family to “start over” with goals for the future.
While the victim “can do a good job of making others perceive him to be strong, confident and funny, Stacey’s actions have caused him an unimaginable grief, anger, confusion, hurt and frustration,” the statement said.
It noted the victim continues to struggle in a number of aspects as a result of Duke’s actions.
Meanwhile, Bihun provided a view of her client and the case that contrasted the Crown’s position while also being careful to state that her submissions were not meant to diminish what transpired.
She highlighted Duke’s support from family members, who were present in court. Bihun told Robertson her client has a history with mental-health issues and alcohol abuse, but she has been sober since October 2022 and has a high prospect of rehabilitation.
Bihun said she doesn’t believe Duke would pose a continued risk, adding it’s unnecessary to impose an order suggested by the Crown which would place prohibitions on Duke to protect young people.
She argued that Duke’s abuse of a position of trust should be considered on the lowest end of the spectrum. Bihun suggested her client’s conduct was limited in frequency and duration, and noted there was no physical aspect to the crimes.
Legal arguments presented Monday were lengthy and are not all represented within this article.
Robertson has scheduled a date in June to deliver his decision.
bharder@postmedia.com
