Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Cour de justice du Nunavut

Citation: R. v. Akittirq, 2018 NUCJ 4

Date: 20180223
Docket: 07-14-38
Registry: Igloolik

Crown: Her Majesty the Queen

-and-

Accused: Steven Akittirq

________________________________________________________________________

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Susan Cooper

Counsel (Crown): Christian Lyons & Phillippe Plourde

Counsel (Accused): James Morton & Julie Bedford

Location Heard: Igloolik, Nunavut

Date Heard: January 30, 2018
Matters: Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c C-46, s 235; Sentencing

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered Orally)

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

 2

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] Mr. Steven Akittirq has pleaded guilty to second degree murder in
relation to the death of Glenna Attagutalukutuk.

[2] He has also pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and two charges
of mischief.

[3] He is before the Court to be sentenced.

II. FACTS

A. Assaults and Mischief Charges

[4] I will deal with the assault and mischief charges first.

i. Assault

[5] On the evening of March 25, 2014, Steven called a woman with whom
he had previously had a brief relationship. He told her that her iPod
was at his house and she should come and get it. When she arrived
at Steven’s house he was waiting in the porch for her. He grabbed
her and dragged her into his bedroom, ripping her jacket and shirt.

[6] Once in the bedroom he slapped her face, punched her, kicked her,
and kneed her. The victim was able to get out of the house and back
home.

[7] The victim did not have lasting injuries as a result of the assault. She
believes Steven did this to her because he was upset about her
having ended the relationship.

[8] In October of 2014 Steven was in jail at the Baffin Correctional Centre
[BCC]. He was involved in an altercation with another inmate and
correctional officers intervened to break them up. Steven was told he
was going to be transferred to another unit. He became upset and
threw a chair at the correctional officers. The chair hit one of the
officers on the side of the body. Steven then punched that officer on
the side of the face. Other officers intervened and took Steven to the
floor. The officer did not have lasting injuries.
 3

ii. Mischief

[9] In the fall of 2017 Steven was involved in two incidents that caused
extensive damage to holding cells at BCC and at the Nunavut Court
of Justice.

[10] On September 25, 2017, he was in a unit housing prisoners assessed

to be at a high risk of violence. There were five people in the cell that
he was in. While beverages were being served to the people in his
cell, he and another inmate ran out of the cell, heading towards
another cell in the same unit. They were stopped and brought back
into their cell. As a result of this, the leisure time for the unit was cut
short. The inmates became upset and started banging on doors and
walls and covering up cameras and windows so they could not be
seen. More correctional officers were moved into the unit. Attempts
were made to try and talk down the inmates. The inmates made
requests for cigarettes, medications, and TV time, which were denied.
The inmates were banging the cell wall and door with a heavy object
and making dents.

[11] The warden of the institution was brought in. He offered an extra hour
of TV time but the inmates were not satisfied.

[12] The situation escalated. Four of the five inmates from Steven’s cell,
including Steven, made their way into the ceiling of the building. They
made their way above cells, kicking out light fixtures in six cells.
Other inmates had to be evacuated to the gym.

[13] A sprinkler head was kicked off, setting off sprinklers which flooded
the hallway and soaked the drywall. The fire department was brought
in.

[14] All of this took place over a period of six or seven hours. The inmates
came out of the ceiling at about 6 a.m.

[15] The damage done was well over $5,000.

[16] On October 1, 2017, Steven and three other inmates were being held
in cells at the Nunavut Court of Justice. They had to be held there
because of the damage that they had caused on September 25.

[17] Each inmate had his own cell at the courthouse.

 4

[18] The inmates became upset over the lack of coffee or tea with their
snacks. They started banging on their cells and yelling at the
correctional officers. They started to clog their toilets with toilet paper,
causing them to overflow. They were using their feet to push the
water under the cell doors and into the area where the officers were.
Steven set off the fire alarm in his cell by throwing water at it. This
caused the fire department, court staff and electricians to respond.
Crown has not provided information as to the extent of the damage.

[19] Crown and Defence submit that the appropriate sentence for these
offences is six months on each of the assault charges, six months on
the mischief at the BCC and three months on the mischief at the
courthouse. They submit that these sentences should run
consecutively to each other, that being one after the other, but
concurrent, or at the same time as the sentence to be imposed on the
murder charge.

B. Murder

[20] I will now address the murder charge.

i. Facts

[21] In June of 2014, Steven Akittirq was 24 years old. Glenna

Attagutalukutuk was 17 years old. They were cousins.

[22] The evening of June 8, 2014, was a special night in Igloolik as it was
the prom to celebrate the high school graduation. Glenna attended
the prom. While she was at the prom she and Steven were texting
and phoning each other. Steven asked her to come to JA’s house
with him.

[23] After the prom, at about 2:30 a.m., Glenna and some friends went to
JA’s house, where she met up with Steven. Her friends did not stay.

[24] Glenna and Steven drank while at JA’s house. Steven had been
drinking earlier in the evening as well.

[25] Steven decided he wanted to snowmobile to Hall Beach. At about 3

or 4 a.m., Steven and Glenna, with the help of others, packed up and
left for Hall Beach. Approximately two hours later, Steven returned to
 5

JA’s house. He was alone. His mood appeared to be off. He was

quiet and shaking. He immediately went to bed.

[26] When Steven woke up later that day his mood was still off and he was
not himself.

[27] Unbeknownst to everyone else, Glenna lay dead on the floor of a

cabin about four kilometres outside of the community.

[28] Around 11 a.m. that morning, Glenna’s mother began to get

concerned. She started calling around to find out where Glenna was.
She called Steven and asked where Glenna was. Steven told her that
Glenna was not in Hall Beach and that she had come back to Igloolik
with him.

[29] Despite having told Glenna’s mother that Glenna was not in Hall
Beach, throughout the day Steven told other people that Glenna was
probably in Hall Beach or at her mother’s house.

[30] Later in the day, Glenna’s mother called Steven again and asked
where Glenna was. Steven told her that he had dropped Glenna off
at her house and that people saw him drop her off. Glenna’s mother
checked with the people who Steven said had seen Glenna being
dropped off but they said they had not seen her.

[31] At about 5 p.m., Steven was seen at JA’s house. Steven was shaking
and typing on the computer.

[32] Later, Steven went to Glenna’s mother’s house. Glenna’s mother

again asked him where Glenna was. Steven did not respond; he left
the house but came back later and asked: “still nothing?” Later that
day he was seen on a hill looking towards the cabin.

[33] At various times the following day Steven was seen typing at a
computer, shaky. In the early morning he again went to the house of
Glenna’s mother and said he was “very scared of her now and that he
was truly sorry.” A short time later he texted JA and asked to meet up
with him, saying he needed help, but he did not get a response.

[34] At about 8 a.m., he logged into Glenna’s Facebook account and

updated her status to: “scared to go home. Fucken Billy my step dad.
I wish my dad was alive”.
 6

[35] Unbeknownst to Steven, Glenna’s body had been found about half an
hour earlier.

[36] Glenna was found in a state of partial undress. She was on the floor
on her back. Her jacket was unzipped and underneath she had only a
bra on. Her snow pants were pulled down to her knees. Her black
leggings were pulled up. She had a rubber boot on one foot. The
other boot was under her body. Her panties and a blood-stained
sanitary napkin were next to her body.

[37] She had multiple injuries, including blunt force injuries to her right eye,
upper lip, lower lip, and neck. She had a chop wound to the back of
her head. She had a stab wound to the base of her neck.

[38] Most significantly, a shot from a firearm entered Glenna’s right arm,
went through her arm and her body, went through both of her lungs,
pierced her heart, exited her body and went through her left arm.
The gunshot shredded her heart. It was the gunshot wound that
caused her death, which was immediate. Medical intervention could
not have saved her.

[39] Four bullet holes were found in the wall of the cabin from a gun being
discharged inside the cabin.

[40] Glenna also had injuries to her vaginal area, including lacerations,
bruising of the hymen, reddening and bleeding. These injuries were
indicative of penetration. Steven’s semen was found in her vaginal
and uterine cavity. Clearly there was sexual activity. It cannot be
determined if the sexual activity was consensual or not consensual. It
cannot be determined when the sexual activity took place in relation
to Glenna’s death.

III. SENTENCING REGIME

[41] The sentence for second degree murder is life in prison. This
sentence is mandatory. There is no discretion.

[42] Sometimes people who are convicted of murder are released on

parole. If they are on parole, they are on continual supervision for the
rest of their lives and their parole can be revoked at any time, putting
them back in jail.
 7

[43] Parole is not automatic. To be on parole an offender must apply to

the National Parole Board. The Parole Board holds hearings and
receives information about the offender. The Board makes a
determination as to whether an offender has made sufficient progress
in his rehabilitation and determines if the offender still poses a risk to
society.

[44] A person convicted of second degree murder can apply for parole
after serving 10 years of his sentence, unless the Court orders that he
serve a longer period of time before being able to apply for parole.
The Court can order that the offender serve anywhere from 10 to 25
years of his sentence before being able to apply for parole.

[45] It is important to remember that being able to apply to the Parole

Board for parole and actually being granted parole are different
things. Many offenders apply for parole and are denied.

[46] The decision that the Court must make today is when Steven will be
able to apply for parole. The Court is not deciding if he will be granted
parole at any time. That will be the decision of the Parole Board.

IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[47] The Crown seeks a period of parole ineligibility of 17 years.

[48] The Defence seeks a period of parole ineligibility of 13 years.

[49] Crown and Defence agree on an appropriate sentence for the balance
of the charges. They recommend to the Court a global sentence of
21 months to run concurrently, or at the same time, as the sentence
for second degree murder.

V. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

[50] The Court received a number of Victim Impact Statements and heard
one statement that was given orally in court.

[51] Glenna was a 17 year old who enjoyed life and had hopes and
dreams for the future. She did well in school and played soccer. She
enjoyed being on the land. She loved children, she had many friends,
she brought joy to her family and those around her. She was looking
 8

forward to graduating from high school and starting her life as an

adult.

[52] The impact on her family and on the community is immeasurable.

[53] The Victim Impact Statement that was given orally in court by
Glenna’s cousin speaks to the destruction. Glenna’s cousin
described a thriving, happy, functioning family before Glenna’s death.
The children all did well in school and received attendance awards.
Now the children’s attendance has dropped to less than 50 per cent.
Their marks are poor. The parents are unable to support and nurture
their younger children as they cannot deal with the loss of Glenna.

[54] They have turned to drinking. They are no longer able to work. They
only go out of the house to get groceries, no longer socializing with
family or friends. Their two younger children, ages six and three
when Glenna died, suffer not only the loss of an older sister but also,
in a way, the loss of their parents. A family that was previously
functioning well is now plagued with alcohol abuse, loneliness, and
isolation.

[55] There is no doubt that the community as a whole was diminished by

the loss of Glenna.

[56] No decision this Court will make can bring Glenna back. Those who
loved her will always live with her loss.

[57] It is my hope that over time the family will come to find strength in
each other; that they will be comforted by the memory of Glenna and
the time they had with her. It is my hope that the family home will be
returned to a safe, nurturing, and loving place; a home where
Glenna’s siblings will be allowed to achieve the potential that was
taken from Glenna. I hope that the proceedings this week will
facilitate that process.

VI. PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

[58] Steven is 27 years old. He is from Igloolik.

[59] He was adopted by his maternal grandparents when he was two

years old and raised as one of eight siblings. He was raised as a
sibling to his biological mother and found out when he was about
 9

eight years old that she was his mother.

[60] His biological mother lived for periods of time in the home with Steven
and for periods of time in Yellowknife. She died when Steven was 22.

[61] There is conflicting information regarding his biological father. On the

one hand, it is reported that Steven has no contact with him. On the
other hand, it is reported that he met his biological father when he
was eight and that he maintains contact with him.

[62] Steven’s grandparents had a traditional home. His grandfather died

when Steven was six years old. His grandmother is quite religious.
The home was a good home, free of alcohol and violence. There is no
doubt that Steven’s grandmother had many responsibilities and
stresses as a single mother with eight children. Steven speaks highly
of her.

[63] Nonetheless, Steven never felt quite accepted into the home. He felt
like he was the less favoured child and that he received less than the
other children in the home, particularly his older brother. It seems that
Steven was a child with some unmet emotional needs.

[64] Steven began abusing substances at an early age.

[65] When he was 14, Steven developed a strong friendship with Isa.
They went hunting together. Isa was older and Steven would often go
to him for advice.

[66] Steven had already started getting into trouble and had had run-ins
with the law when he became friends with Isa; but it seems that Isa
was a positive influence in his life.

[67] Steven had several relationships through the years and has fathered
four children, the youngest when he was only 13. His most serious
relationship was with the mother of his seven-year-old son. The
couple lived together for a time. When his son was born, Steven
dropped out of school. He began working as a supervisor at the
Community Hall. He also volunteered to be a firefighter. He stopped
using substances. Steven reports that this was a good period in his
life, although there are indications that there were problems that are
not being acknowledged by Steven, including violence towards his
girlfriend.
 10

[68] When Steven was 19, his friend Isa died. This had a huge impact on
Steven. He became depressed and angry. He started using
substances again. He was fighting with people. Steven reports that
he became abusive towards his girlfriend. The relationship ended.

[69] As an adult, Steven’s life has been characterized by alcohol and drug
abuse and violence. He has made his money as a bootlegger and
drug dealer.

[70] His criminal record shows entries dating back to when Steven was
about 13 years old. There are eight offences of violence. I am
advised that five of these assault convictions are on former partners.
Two of them are on female victims who were not intimate partners.

[71] He had previously received a federal sentence and was granted

parole. He was on parole for about seven months, at which time his
parole was revoked.

[72] His conduct while in custody has been problematic. He has been
involved in numerous incidents with other inmates and with guards.
He has been involved in incidents resulting in significant damage to
the jail and the courthouse. He has been charged criminally as a
result of incidents while in jail.

VII. ANALYSIS

[73] As previously mentioned, the law requires that a person convicted of

murder be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Court may
increase the period of time that must be served before being eligible
for parole above the minimum of 10 years, having regard to:

• the character of the offender, and

• the nature of the offence and the
circumstances surrounding its commission.

[74] The deliberate taking of a life is the most serious crime in our society.
The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment reflects society’s
condemnation. There may be instances where the parole ineligibility
of 10 years is not sufficient to meet the sentencing principles of
denunciation and deterrence. It is for this reason that the law
provides that the period of parole ineligibility may be increased.
 11

[75] Counsel have provided a thorough review of the case law in this area,
for which I am grateful. In Nunavut, the periods of parole ineligibility
range from 10 to 18 years. Many of those cases were the result of
joint submissions by counsel so they are of little precedential value.

[76] Further, as the case law clearly indicates, sentencing is a highly

individualized process. No two cases and no two offenders are
identical.

[77] Perhaps the case most similar is that of R v Jeffrey, 2007 NUCJ 12,
2007 CarswellNun 13 [Jeffrey], which also involved the brutal attack
of a young girl. Jeffrey is distinguishable in that Jeffrey was not
arrested until several months after the murder. In the interim, he
identified the mother as the perpetrator and a police investigation was
commenced, during which time Jeffrey was wired and went to the
home of the mother to try and obtain a confession, a significant
aggravating factor. In that case, the offender’s parole ineligibility was
set at 14 years.

A. Character of the Offender

[78] It is difficult to truly understand who Steven is. On the one hand, he is
portrayed as a young man who grew up as the less favoured son, with
basic needs being unmet and neglected. On the other hand, he is
portrayed as a spoiled, entitled young man who simply takes what he
wants without regard for others.

[79] I have a report which concludes that Steven is dangerous, which is

clearly supported by his history. How this speaks to his future
prospects is not clear as the conclusion seems to be based on
perceptions by the writer and not on standardized testing. The nature
of programming available to Steven in the federal system or his
potential for success in them, should he choose to participate, is not
addressed.

[80] It is argued that Steven’s character is reflected and best determined

by his past behaviour. In this regard, there is a long history of
criminality. The criminal record shows a pattern of assaultive
behaviour towards females.

[81] Some of Steven’s comments made to others since being in custody

are concerning as they demonstrate a high level of insensitivity and
 12

callousness regarding the matter. On the other hand, there have

been times when he has fully accepted responsibility and expressed
remorse.

[82] Steven is still relatively young. He is not diagnosed as having a

psychopathy. Prospects for some rehabilitation cannot be
disregarded. When the time comes for Steven to be able to apply for
parole, and if he chooses to apply, the Parole Board will be in a much
better position than the Court to make these determinations.

B. Circumstances of the Offence

[83] There are aspects of this particular offence which are aggravating.

[84] The attack on Glenna was brutal, involving different types of injuries
and the use of up to three different types of weapons. This is
indicative of a particularly vicious killing.

[85] Steven was prohibited from using firearms. He had a history of

violence towards women.

[86] Glenna was his younger cousin. Clearly, she trusted him or she
would not have agreed to go to Hall Beach with him. This trust was
misplaced.

[87] There was some attempt to try and divert attention from himself for a
short time, however, these were clumsy and ineffectual. Clearly,
Steven was shaken by the events as a change in his demeanour and
behaviour was noticed by those around him.

[88] It is important to remember that neither Crown nor Defence Counsel

are suggesting a parole ineligibility of 10 years. Both acknowledge
that this matter calls for a period of increased parole ineligibility. It is
important not to start from the position that the Defence position of 13
years is the minimum. It is not.

[89] I agree with Counsel that this case does require an increased period
of parole ineligibility. I am of the view that the period of 17 years
sought by the Crown is excessive.

[90] I am of the view that given Steven’s character, and in particular his
propensity to be violent towards females, as well as the
 13

circumstances of this offence as previously discussed, the appropriate

period of parole ineligibility is 14 years.

VIII. CONCLUSION

[91] The sentence is as follows:

• assault from March 25, 2014: 6 months;

• assault from Oct.1, 2014: 6 months consecutive;
• mischief from Sept. 25, 2017: 6 months consecutive;
• mischief from Oct. 1, 2017: 3 months consecutive.

TOTAL: 21 months

[92] On the charge of second degree murder, the sentence is life

imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for a period of 14 years.

[93] The 21 months will run concurrently to the sentence of life

imprisonment.

[94] Ancillary orders are as follows:

• DNA order - mandatory;

• firearms prohibition - s. 109 of the Criminal Code,
RSC, 1985, c C-46, for life;
• Victim of Crime Surcharge on each of the assault
and mischief charges, $100 and on the murder,
$200, for a total of $600, payable immediately;
• forfeiture as per the list provided by the Crown;
• there will be a sealing order in relation to
Appendixes 4 and 6.

Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 23rd day of February, 2018

___________________
Justice S. Cooper
Nunavut Court of Justice