Date: 19990511 
Docket: SCR9711421 
Registry: Williams Lake

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Reasons for Judgment
Mr. Justice Josephson
May 11, 1999


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

AGAINST

JAMES BOLTON

Counsel for the Crown: William Hilderman, Esq.

Counsel for the Accused: Alfred Kaiser, Esq. 

[1] THE COURT: Mr. Bolton is before me for sentencing on 10
counts of sexual offences committed on four young boys. 
Nine counts relate to offences committed on three brothers
between 1970 and 1980. Count 10 relates to an offence
committed from about 1984 or 1985 to 1991, with the victim
in that count being the son of the victim in Counts 3
through 5. Mr. Bolton pled guilty to all but Count 10. The
offences involve acts from fondling of the genitalia to
fellatio and anal intercourse. The victims were children of
friends and acquaintances of Mr. Bolton. He would use that
position of trust with the child and family to isolate and
abuse that child.
[2] Counts 1 and 2 allege indecent assault and gross
indecency involving T.E. from 1972 to 1980. He was nine
years of age in 1972. He recalled numerous acts of abuse,
including painful anal intercourse, as well as mutual
fondling and fellatio. The abuse ended when the victim
moved to another province. The accused did not use threats
to ensure silence, but did refer to the acts as their little
secret which no one was to know about.
[3] Counts 3 through 5 name R.E. as the victim of acts
of buggery, indecent assault and gross indecency between
1972 and 1978. He was 11 years of age in 1972. He
described similar conduct on the part of the accused, with
the exception that he was able to push the accused away
during acts of fellatio and successfully prevented Mr.
Bolton's attempt at an act of anal intercourse.
[4] Counts 6 through 9 name M.E. as the victim of acts
of assault with intent to commit buggery, indecent assault,
buggery and gross indecency. These occurred from 1970, when
he was six years of age, to 1978. He described many acts of
fondling, fellatio and anal intercourse upon him by the
accused. The accused ensured silence by telling him that
people would think he was dirty, that his parents would not
believe him and they would end up hating him.
[5] With respect to Count number 10, the victim in
that case, the child of R., recalled two acts of fondling
and one of oral sex by the accused in 1984 or 1985, when he
was five or six years of age. When he was from 10 to 12
years of age, there were mutual acts of fondling and
fellatio. In 1991, there were acts of mutual fondling. On
each occasion, the accused told him that the incidents were
their little secret, and that he should not tell his parents
as they would be jealous.
Dangerous Offender Application
[6] The Crown applies to have Mr. Bolton declared a
dangerous offender. In the course of these sentence
proceedings, the Crown led evidence of other similar acts
committed by Mr. Bolton.
[7] Twenty six year old D.F. was abused by Mr. Bolton
beginning when he was five years old, or about 1978. Mr.
Bolton was friends with the victim's alcoholic parents. Mr.
Bolton began regularly abusing him, including painful anal
intercourse. The abuse was frequent and lasted for years. 
Mr. Bolton told him not to tell anyone, that it would hurt
for a while and then get better. Like many of his victims,
the impact on Mr. F. has been severe. He has attempted
suicide on many occasions. Despite counselling, it appears
unlikely he will ever live a normal life.
[8] Thirty-one year old M.P. was victimized by Mr.
Bolton beginning when he was about eight years of age. He
and his sister were being baby sat by Mrs. Bolton, who would
frequently leave them in the care of Mr. Bolton. On nearly
every such occasion, which could be from one to five days a
week over some four years, Mr. Bolton abused Mr. P. with
fondling and acts of oral intercourse. Mr. P. always
refused Mr. Bolton's attempts to have his commit acts of
fellatio in return, and successfully avoided Mr. Bolton's
attempts at anal intercourse. Mr. Bolton threatened to kill
him and his sister if he ever revealed what he had done. 
The abuse ended when Mr. P.'s family moved away after some
four years. However, the abuse continued for another five
months when they returned when he was age 13. The abuse
ended then as police were investigating Mr. Bolton. He
described the impact upon him, an impact which he appears
now to be coping with, although it continues to haunt him
daily.
[9] Twenty eight year old W.T. had his penis fondled
by Mr. Bolton on one occasion when he was about eight years
of age. That single incident has had a long term impact on
Mr. T.
[10] His now 25 year old brother J.T. was present on
that same occasion and had his penis fondled by Mr. Bolton
as well. On another occasion, while in Bolton's vehicle,
Mr. Bolton fondled him and had him place his hand on Mr.
Bolton's penis. Mr. Bolton made some threats which he
cannot now remember but which were nonetheless successful in
keeping him silent. Mr. T. testified that there were other
incidents which he cannot recall as vividly and did not
describe. He described what he called the tremendous impact
of these incidents on his life. He rebelled against all
authority, and became involved in the street life of
substance abuse. Still not a day passes without the abuse
coming to mind.
[11] Now 12 year old S.M. described one incident of a
brief fondling of his penis over the clothing in the bedroom
of his home in Edmonton in 1991. Mr. Bolton's wife was
downstairs in a state of near hysteria at the time due to
the death of her mother. Mr. Bolton took that opportunity
to claim he wished to go upstairs to shower. But first, he
entered the bedroom where five year old S. was playing on
the floor. Mr. Bolton joined him on the floor and fondled
him. Fortunately, young S. had been taught by his parents
that this kind of touching was wrong, and he so informed Mr.
Bolton, who withdrew without further incident. Even for S.
there was an impact of some significance. He became more
withdrawn and tended to cling to his mother. His mother
described with some eloquence the impact of this incident on
the family. Even a brief and relatively mild act of abuse
by a trusted adult on a young child has a significant impact
on that child and the child's family that can never be
minimized.
Criminal Record
[12] Mr. Bolton, in addition to two drinking and
driving offences in 1970 and 1979, was convicted in 1983 of
four counts of buggery, three counts of sexual assault and
three counts of indecent assault. All victims were young
males. He was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment, followed
by three years probation.
[13] Mr. Bolton moved to Saskatchewan. He was
convicted and fined for theft of goods of a value under $200
in 1985. In 1986 he was convicted of assault and
threatening, for which he was placed on probation.
Expert Evidence
[14] Dr. Collins is a Forensic Psychiatrist who is the
Crown's nominee. Dr. Semrau, also a Forensic Psychiatrist,
is the nominee for the defence. Both found the accused to
be outwardly cooperative and readily acknowledging all the
offences in the indictment but Count number 10. He
professed remorse for his offences in a manner which, at
least to Dr. Semrau seemed genuine.
[15] With Dr. Collins, Mr. Bolton claimed he was
intoxicated at the time of all offences, denied having
sexual thoughts about children, rarely thought about the
assaults and could not remember what he had done. He blamed
alcohol and his own abuse as a child for his conduct. 
Although he could recall the fear and shame when he had been
similarly victimized as a child, when asked about the impact
on his victims, he told Dr. Collins that it was okay, he
guessed; that they didn't get mad; never told him to stop;
and he didn't know if they were enjoying it or not. 
However, he did acknowledge that the impact on his victims
would have been devastating.
[16] Dr. Collins described the three methods employed
to assess the risk for future sexual violence. He found
that Mr. Bolton did not have any significant psychopathic
personality characteristics. He listed the risk factors
which "are present or have been present at some time in the
past", as well as risk factors which are absent. He
described the most significant risk factor as paedophilia,
for which he has not received treatment. Research
indicates, he testified, that the existence of a likelihood
of further such offences being committed even after
involvement in the justice system.
[17] Dr. Collins found that Mr. Bolton minimized the
seriousness of the offences, did not accept full
responsibility for his conduct and projected blame onto
intoxication and being the victim of sexual abuse himself. 
While Mr. Bolton clearly planned and arranged to be alone
with the children, he denied any planning of sexual acts and
claimed the offences were impulsive. Also worrisome was his
denial of having a sexual interest in boys, after which he
gave statements which tended to contradict that. As well,
his adamant assertion that he stopped offending in 1982
contradicts the fact of his conviction on Count number 10.
[18] Dr. Collins found Mr. Bolton's claim of low libido
not verifiable due to the subjective nature of that
complaint and the fact that the absence of sexual activity
could be caused by other factors.
[19] Dr. Collins concluded that there is a moderate to
high probability that Mr. Bolton will re-offend without
appropriate treatment and supervision. He added that there
is a reasonable probability of eventual control of the risk
in the community. He acknowledged that if the claim of loss
of libido resulting from the stroke and diabetes in 1992 is
genuine, that would alter his opinion of the existence of
moderate to high risk of re-offending.
[20] Dr. Semrau found that Mr. Bolton was "entirely
cooperative and appeared straightforward, open and unguarded
in his responses". He found him to describe the offences in
a straightforward manner, attributing the lack of recall of
some details to alcohol and a stroke which he suffered in
1992, although he acknowledged that he was entirely sober
during some of the offences. He claimed the offences were
not planned, but were impulsive and opportunistic. He
acknowledged sexual fantasies involving boys.
[21] He expressed an understanding of the impact on his
child victims and professed what appeared to Dr. Semrau to
be genuine remorse. He denied using force or threats to
bring about compliance. While acknowledging that he told
victims that they should keep quiet afterwards, he claimed
he gave no other instructions.
[22] With Dr. Semrau, Mr. Bolton "with apparent
sincerity and a moderate amount of emotion", professed that
the acts were "sick, embarrassing and he was ashamed of
them". He claimed to have felt sick about what he had done,
but that his urges would compel further similar acts. He
claimed empathy for his victims and expressed "with
considerable emotion" a fear that his victims might turn out
to be sexual abusers like himself. He claimed "100%"
responsibility.
[23] With Dr. Semrau, Mr. Bolton claimed that all
sexual interest in young males and offending ended when he
went to gaol in 1983. He claimed his sexual interest turned
to adult women. As well, Mr. Bolton claimed that his stroke
in 1992 ended even that sexual interest or ability to
perform the sexual act. He claimed that alcohol was no
longer a significant factor in his life.
[24] Dr. Semrau found Mr. Bolton sincere and
straightforward, forcing himself to deal with material he
plainly found distressing. He found Mr. Bolton demonstrated
"genuine remorse and empathy" for his victims.
[25] Dr. Semrau opines that there is a great difficulty
devising reliable methods for estimating the risk of further
sexual offences. Using the admittedly crude methods now
available to provide "ballpark estimates" of that risk, he
went to some great length to explain his opinion that "Mr.
Bolton is very unlikely to sexually re-offend again, even if
he were released into the community with no further
treatment or supervision". He notes that Mr. Bolton's
considerable and serious sexual abuse of children almost
completely ended with his incarceration in 1983 and that
there is no suggestion of any offences of any kind since he
suffered a stroke and developed diabetes in 1992, the time
of the claimed loss of libido and erectile function. While
Dr. Semrau notes the one exception to be the conviction on
Count number 10, I would add to that the fondling of S.M. in
1991 that I find proven in these sentencing proceedings.
[26] Dr. Semrau accepted the change as genuine after
considering as number of factors, including his imprisonment
in 1984, his stroke and diabetes in 1992 with the claimed
erectile dysfunction confirmed by a urologist, the fact that
the stroke affected a portion of the brain believed to be
involved in sexual interest, the onset of andropause or male
menopause, the resultant marked decline in sexual interest
of any kind, the marked improvement in his marital
relationship and the marked decline in the use of alcohol.
[27] Dr. Semrau also found that Mr. Bolton is an
excellent candidate for a sexual offender treatment program.
[28] The Crown and defence agree that the sole issue is
whether the Crown has proven "a likelihood of causing
injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure
in the future to control his sexual impulses", within the
meaning of s. 753.1(b). Dr. Collins places that risk at
moderate to high; Dr. Semrau at near zero.
[29] The point at which the two psychiatrists part
company is primarily the reliability of the reported loss of
libido and erectile function by the accused in 1992. Dr.
Collins found this too subjective a report to be accepted as
reliable. Dr. Semrau examined the subjective reports with
some care and found it to be sufficiently confirmed by other
information to be accepted as reliable. In particular, he
found the stroke and diabetes to have been the likely cause
of the reported lack of interest in sex and inability to
have an erection. He found the claim sufficiently reliable
that he placed the risk of re-offence at near zero, even if
released into the community with no supervision.
[30] I cannot, as invited by the Crown, deal with the
remaining admitted risk which continues by sentencing him to
an indeterminate sentence to reduce that risk to zero. I
need not in this case attempt the mental gymnastics of
determining when a likelihood is proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. The evidence of the well experienced Dr. Semrau
leaves me to the conclusion that the likelihood required by
s. 753.1(b) has not been demonstrated, even on balance. I
decline, therefore, to declare him a dangerous offender. 
Likewise, I decline to declare him a long term offender as
the evidence does not establish a substantial risk that Mr.
Bolton will re-offend, as required by s. 753.1(b).
[31] What then is an appropriate determinate sentence? 
The Crown has advanced a line of authorities, led by R. v.
Bakker and R. v. Turley, which it submits should lead to a
sentence of from four to six years for Counts 1 through 9,
and a consecutive sentence of three to four years for Count
10, occurring as it does after the accused had served a gaol
sentence for similar offences. That would leave a global
sentence of from seven to 10 years, from which would be
deducted credit for time already served.
[32] With refreshing frankness, Mr. Kaiser for Mr.
Bolton acknowledged that the Bakker and Turley cases most
closely resemble the circumstances of this case and provide
an appropriate range for my guidance. I accept those
submissions.
[33] The evidence leads to the conclusion that the
accused was a compulsive paedophile who committed over a
thousand sexual acts on many children. His activity reduced
after his incarceration in the early 80's but did not cease
until 1992 when he suffered a stroke and developed diabetes. 
It appears to have accomplished results similar to that of
castration, results which have largely resolved the fear of
further offences which would otherwise exist.
[34] While I cannot sentence Mr. Bolton for the similar
acts not the subject of counts in the indictment, the
defence acknowledges, rightly in my view, that I may take
those acts into consideration as aggravating factors and in
putting the circumstances of the counts of the indictment
into perspective.
[35] Mr. Bolton leaves a trail of broken lives. The
shame, humiliation and self blaming suffered by his victims
are slow, if ever, to dissipate and impacts negatively on
every aspect of their lives. Even those who, with support,
counselling and the passage of many years, have learned to
cope with their ordeal, will never have the opportunity to
enjoy the fullness that life would have offered had they not
been the victims of this abuse at the hands of Mr. Bolton. 
Some have been severely crippled emotionally for life.
[36] A significant period of incarceration is required
to reflect the need for general deterrence and to express
society's denunciation of these most serious and destructive
of offences. Children in the hands of trusted adults are
the most vulnerable members of society and must be protected
as much as the sentencing process is able to accomplish.
[37] An appropriate global sentence in my respectful
view is one of eight years. While not inappropriate to
accomplish this by a separate consecutive sentence for Count
10 as suggested by the Crown, I choose not to do so. He has
served the equivalent of some two years. I sentence him to
imprisonment for a period of six years on each of the 10
counts, to be served concurrently, along with a
recommendation that he be considered for sexual offender and
alcohol abuse treatment programs to further reduce what I
have already found to be the already low risk of re-
offending.
[38] With thanks to both counsel I will adjourn.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)