A B.C. Supreme Court judge has flipped to jail time a decision by a Surrey provincial court judge to sentence to house arrest a man who pleaded guilty to child-luring.
Gulbag Singh Hothi was sentenced on Sept. 13, 2024 after pleading guilty to luring a 15-year-old girl "by means of telecommunication for the purpose of committing a sexual offence."
There is a publication ban on information that could identify the victim.
Justice Andrea Ormiston's judgment, posted May 8, was rendered in New Westminster. In her reasons she noted that at the time of the 2023 offence the victim was a student at an alternative school and came to know Hothi while he was doing a practicum.
"In this capacity, the respondent assisted teachers and support workers including interacting with students in their educational environment, as well as on field trips," Ormiston noted. "The respondent was also responsible for having individual meetings with students to relay concerns or needs to their assigned support worker. The respondent was 27 years old."
The judge noted that no sexual encounter occurred.
A Surrey judge sentenced Hothi to an 18-month conditional sentence order (aka CSO) followed by a year's probation. The Crown, which argued for a year of incarceration to be followed by two years' probation, appealed the lower court decision on grounds it was "demonstrably unfit" and that the sentencing judge made errors in principle that impacted the outcome.
"I find the appellant has established the sentencing judge made factual errors regarding the impact of the offence on the victim, the immaturity of the offender and the extent of the breach of trust," Ormiston concluded, which "stand out as palpable. I also find them to be overriding; that is, I am satisfied the errors played a significant role in the ultimate decision to grant a CSO as opposed to incarceration."
Ormiston noted that Hothi harmed the girl "by interfering with her schooling when this is already something that posed a challenge. He also made her anxious and afraid. But for her courage, the result could have been much worse."
However, the judge added, the victim's resistance "does not detract from the respondent's high moral blameworthiness or the seriousness of the offending.
"His repeated messages show that he acted intentionally, not impulsively or in the heat of the moment. He was concerned about what could happen to himself, but showed no inclination to stop this harmful behaviour," Ormiston concluded." He acted deceitfully and for his own sexual gratification. The limited period of time over which these messages were sent is offset by the nearly immediate and significant impact the offending had on the victim."
The higher-court judge concluded that Hothi's crime requires a jail sentence, "in order to be consistent with the principles and purposes of sentencing and to give substantive meaning to the court’s recognition that this is harmful and wrongful offending."
Had she been the sentencing judge, she said, she would have imposed a 12-month jail term.
"The respondent is entitled to one-for-one credit against that sentence for the time already served on his CSO with strict conditions, and the extensive work he has done to further his rehabilitation," she said, re-setting the sentence. "I am crediting him with seven-and-a-half months of time served. The CSO is revoked and the respondent will serve four-and-a-half months' incarceration. The probation and ancillary orders remain in effect."
