Warning: This story contains graphic content.
A Victoria man who bit his girlfriend’s breasts during a sexual assault and was also convicted of possession of child pornography has lost his appeal of a 61Ú2 -year jail term.
The man, who is only identified as R.L.W. due to a publication ban, attacked his girlfriend, only identified as Ms. N, at his father’s home July 19, 2008.
At the time, Ms. N had decided to end their relationship, which had deteriorated due to his verbal abuse and drinking.
But she had been persuaded to go to the father’s apartment to get her apartment key returned.
R.L.W. ordered her to remove her clothes and then threw her onto the bed where he pinned her, at times holding his hand over her mouth, court was told.
He demanded to know whether she had been unfaithful to him and threatened that he would kill her if she had cheated on him.
He insisted on having anal intercourse and threatened to rape her without a condom if she refused. He forced her to place a condom on him using her mouth and then proceeded to sexually assault her.
“During the course of the assault, R.L.W. bit both of Ms. N’s breasts a number of times,” said the sentencing judge, who is not identified in the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling.
“He also used her hair and a chain necklace she was wearing … as a means of controlling and directing her actions.”
R.L.W., who was deemed to exhibit sexual sadism, forced her to perform oral sex while making her view child pornography.
He was sentenced to five years in jail for sexual assault causing bodily harm and 18 months consecutive for possession of child pornography.
R.L.W. argued a number of grounds on appeal, including that the judge had failed to properly consider his aboriginal background and that the sentences were individually and collectively excessive and outside the appropriate range.
However, in a ruling released Wednesday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal found the judge had properly outlined R.L.W.’s family history of violence and alcoholism and the impact of his parents’ residential-school experiences.
Although the sentences were at the high end of the range, when considering sentencing principles, including the violent nature of the assault, the sentences were not demonstrably unfit, the court concluded.
Justice David Harris’s reasons for judgment were agreed to by Chief Justice Lance Finch and Justice Kathryn Neilson.
© Copyright 2013