How can I begin to describe the atmosphere and goings on in the courthouse at Father Dan Miller’s sentencing hearing Tuesday, 17 September 2013? It’s impossible. I know that. But, I’ll do my best.
The hearing was scheduled to start at 10 am. By 9:15 a number of people had already gathered in and outside the courthouse. I was told that Father Miller and his lawyer, Robert Carew had arrived around 9 am.
The tension was palpable.
Father Miller was already seated in the court room at 09:45. There he sat up at the front and to the left (judge’s right) , dressed in his greyish-blue golf shirt and dark pants. To his right was his lawyer, Robert Carew.
Father Miller didn’t do any over-the-shoulder checks. As far as I could tell, he was staring straight ahead. There was minimal banter between the pair.
Not too far in front of the pair was the witness stand, the stand at which Father Miller’s victims and family members would soon stand to read their Victim Impact Statements.
As I said before, there were 35-40 in attendance. Some arrived in the afternoon, the large majority were there for the day. I didn’t know who was who but eventually realized the five victims and their families were scattered around the room.
Father Peter Proulx and Monsignor Douglas Bridge were there. They sat together on the row to the far left of the court, about half way down. Both wore their collars.
There were a goodly number of others who came to witness the proceedings first hand. There was a victim of Monsignor Bernard Prince. There were teachers. There were former parishioners. All had known Father Miller, some better than others.
Thirty-five to 40 may not sound like many, but, believe me, that is a huge turn-out for a hearing. Huge! Even the judge noticed. At one point he commented that there seemed to be great interest in this case.
The courtroom used for the hearing is one which is usually reserved for remand court. It’s a large large room with seating for at least a hundred, probably more.
Like most courtrooms large or small, the sound system is sorely wanting. I have learned through bad past experience to try to nab a seat right up at the front, the better to try to catch every word. Even at the front it is often difficult to hear what is being said. Those who sat further back in the courtroom on Tuesday must have had a hard time. I caught a lot, but also missed enough words here and there that I have opted not to try to relate some of statements and exchanges.
Sitting close to the front has its pros, but there are cons. I truly would prefer to sit at the back to watch what is going on in front of and around me. But, more important to hear as much as possible, so, there you go 
There were whispered conversations around the courtroom. People checking to see who’s here. More whispers.
Have you ever noticed how you can sometimes “feel” the atmosphere.? It was like that. Tension in the air. Strain. It was palpable.
Then it began.
First, the Victim Impact Statements (VIS).. I have posted a number of those statements, Due to a publication on the identities of the victims I have given each victim a moniker. Five victims gave a VIS. One mother gave a VIS. Another mother’s VIS was read by her daughter, a sister of one of the victims.
There are publication bans on the victim’s names.
I prefer you read the statements yourself. The statements capture the sentiments of the victims much better than I ever could. Here are the links. The can be accessed through both the Father Dan Miller page and the Victims page:
17 September 2013: Victim Impact Statement by mother whose sons were sexually abused by Father Daniel Miller
17 September 2013: Victim Impact Statement of “Victim C” who was sexually abused by Father Daniel Miller
17 September 2013: Victim Impact Statement of “Victim B” who was sexually abused by Father Daniel Miller
17 September 2013: Victim Impact Statement of “Victim A” who was sexually abused by Father Daniel Miller
17 September 2013: Victim Impact Statement from mother whose son was sexually abused by Father Daniel Miller
The Cross-Examination
Unbelievable as it seems, Father Dan Miller’s lawyer Robert Carew decided to cross-examine those who gave a VIS. I have never seen nor heard of such a thing Never. I did check and discovered that it is permissible and legal.
Legal or no, the cross-examination was merciless and cruel. It didn’t last long, and came to halt only with the intervention of the judge. (Justice .
The first victim to read his VIS was lambasted by Carew for saying that “the Church” did nothing when Church officials were told that Miller was an abuser. Carew accused the man of having a vendetta against the Church. Seemingly in defence of the Pembroke Diocese Carew said that Father Miller had been suspended, the inference being that the Chruch had responded appropriately. The truth of the matter is that hardly a soul in the Pembroke Diocese knew why Miller had sort of disappeared back in late 1999/2000. No one was told the real reason. There were stories circulating in some circles that he had been approached by an irate parent and beaten, but there was nothing from the diocese which would either confirm or refute those stories, and in truth there were very very few Catholics who were privy to those stories. Instead, people on a whole understood that Father had health issues of some sort, and most accepted that explanation without question. There was no attempt on the part of the diocese to alert and/or warn parents, nor, to my knowle3dge, was there any attempt to seek out other victims . As far as suspension is concerned, it wasn’t much of a suspension. In recent years Father Miller was assisting at Father Dan Miller was assisting at St Edwards in Bristol Parishioners were not told that there were allegations of child sex abuse against Father Dan Miller. It was, yes, a secret.
Carew accused the second victim of seeking Father Miller out. The victim tried to say he was just a child, but Carew then railed on and on about the victim asking Father Miller to say the Mass at his wedding and marry him. When the victim tried to say he was told that that happens with many victims, Carew snapped: “Who told you that?” Teh victim was right. Mr. Carew should know that it is not uncommon for a male victims to ask the priest who molested them to officiate at their wedding.
I don’t have the grilling down verbatim, but I assure it was nasty, and perhaps all the more so given that Father Daniel Miller had entered a guilty plea to the charges!.
There was about to be more grilling after a mother read her VIS. That cross-examination came to a merciful end only after Justice Ray intervened and suggested Mr. Carew save those comments for later. At that time Justice Ray also expressed annoyance that rules and regulations which govern VIS were not adhered to by soem who had read their statements into the record. (Yes, there are regulations for VIS, and they are vetted)
I believe everyone in that courtroom was taken aback when Carew started grilling the shocked victims and the one mother , and all were thankful someone finally put an end to it.
All was “well” until after the last victim gave his VIS. And Carew started again: He was going to go on about the victim’s criminal record. Teh vcitim agreed thathe has a criminal record. Then he siad that he had a question to ask Mr., Carew. That was the end of that.
Poor Father Miller
Mr. Carew wants house arrest for his client, with or without an ankle bracelet. He claims that electronic monitoring would be difficult due to the size of the building Father Miller is living in, but later suggested that a landline could be put into Miller’s two-bedroom apartment. He claims there is no reason to believe that Miller would not follow the conditions set by the courts.
Carew is all about leniency for his cleint. I suppose that’s the name of the game?
Anyway, he referred to a report by a Dr. Federhoff in which the doctor allegedly says that the risk of recidivism is very low. ( I believe most people know all too well that various “experts” have been sorely mistaken in the past, for example, in the case of Father Phil Jacobs too. And what exactly does “low” risk mean. They can never say it’s nil, can they? In other words, they are willing to take the risk that he will not molest, and, … if he does? What if he does molest again? Well, if he does that would constitute nothing more than a little slip. I’ve literally heard it described that way. A little slip. No thought of the unfortunate child willfully placed in harms’ way?)
We also heard that it’s been 30-40 years since the allegations – and there’s been not a single allegation of wrong-doing against Miller since then. (How long did it take the victims to come forward? Thirty + years? How long does it take most victims to come forward? )
The judge was asked to give Miller credit for various programs he has taken, particularly the six months spent in Southdown. And the court was told that Father Miller went to Southdown all on his own, long before the charges were laid. That was presented as a feather in Miller’s cap. The judge however asked if the Southdown trip was not prompted by Father Miller’s superiors? The lawyer consulted his client: “He says it was suggested.” And, the truth is that Father Miller was shipped off to Southdown after the cat was out of the bag and Miller was identified as a molester, and that was probably not too long after a mother found out what he had done to her boys and headed right over to confront him, slapped him in the face and then marched off to see the bishop.)
I think everyone gasped silently when Carew asked that Miller be given one for time for the six months in Southdown. The judge said he hadn’t seen such a thing before, but after a little explaining by Carew and citing case law where a judge erred in failing to give time for residential treatment and therefore efforts at reform I got the impression the judge just might entertain the thought, at least in part.
IF Miller is incarcerated rather than given a conditional sentence, Carew asked that the Southdown time be deducted from the sentence.
We hard from Mr. Carew that Father Miller has done a lot of positive things for his community, and that there are a large number of letters which allegedly speak well of Father Miller. Often at a sentencing hearing snippets of such letters are read into the record. No excerpts were read.
Mr. Carew bemoaned the fact that Father Miller has suffered significantly because of all of this, and has lost his ‘job.’ At that there were was an outbreak of moans and chuckles rippled throughout the courtroom. The judge was not happy. All in court were admonished and warned that such behavior would not be tolerated, and warned that this “is a very serious matter.”
And Mr Carew did not forget that he had things to say and questions to ask when the VIS were read. He went on a roll. He tore apart the VIS of all the victims, and one of the mothers. He rattled on that the last victim to testify was a drug addict, and that no weight should be given to his statement that he is sexually dysfunctional.
The mother who slapped Father Miller across the face was described by Carew as “a very vindictive person. “ According to Carew, that mother tried to ensure that Father Miller wouldn’t work, and he has therefore been unable to work in his “chosen profession.” Carew also bemoaned the fact that this mother criticized Father Miller, and she criticized the Church. And, listen to this – he complained that she had neglected to mention that she slapped Father Miller and the face, and – you won’t believe this - that Miller didn’t react! I got the impression that he thought that the fact that Miller didn’t react (whatever that might constitute) was a badge of honour.
According to Carew, the Victim Impact Statements were just setting up for lawsuits. And , well, according to Father Dan Miller’s lawyer, what Father Miller did to those boys really no big deal.
Yes, Carew actually downplayed the abuse and its severity. According to Carew the abuse of four of the five victims lasted only seconds to a minute or so, Father Miller was never undressed, nor were the complainant, there was no grooming, there was no violence and in each case the abuse was an isolated incident thereby putting the abuse on the low end of the scale. (The truth is that all gross indecency charges against Miller were whittled away prior to trial and without doubt as part of the plea bargaining process. Those charges involved masturbation. I must check but I don’t believe there is one victim who would say that the abuse happened ‘only once’ ? Furthermore, most people now know that the fact that there was only one charge does not mean it only happened once. And, finally, as far as no threats is concerned, seems to me warning boys that they will go to Hell if they tell is a pretty good threat? )
Interesting, when Carew said that there was no violence involved the judge actually interjected that the sexual assault of a child is a crime of violence. A welcome comment.
The we heard that Father Miller can’t be faulted for not pleading guilty at his first court appearance, and that the extra time was necessary to pin down what the allegations were.
A section from the Southdown Substance Abuse Interview which referenced which according to Mr. Carew suggests Miller showed genuine remorse. The Crown in turn disagreed
There was a comment made that Father Miller has a lack of understanding of his own sexuality. I didn’t quite catch where that was supposed to fit into the grand scheme of ensuring that Father Miller spend as little time as possible, and preferably no time at all, behind bars.
The Crown
Mr. Nichol noted that Miller has refused to acknowledge the abuse (This makes more sense and is contrary to stories which circulated that he was anxious to admit his guilt and enter a guilty plea.)
According to Nichol a conditional sentence was not an option in the criminal code of the day, and that sentencing for the various offenses then could be up to 10 years. At this the judge interjected – he reminded all that the Code of the day also provided for whipping. I could be mistaken but felt the comment was made in a somewhat condescending manner, as in who in their right mind would condone whipping a convicted molester? I was surprised by the comment, particularly in response to fact that there could be a sentence of up to 10 years. Plus, I’m not so sure that a whipping and 10 years in jail is the worst thing in the world that could happen to a child molester.
The Crown felt that a guilty plea should not be considered a mitigating factor because it came after the victims had gone through examination for discovery (This was an unusual step. It is akin to a preliminary hearing, but, unlike a preliminary hearing, it is not open to the public. Examination for discovery is typical in lawsuits, but unusual in criminal cases.)
He agreed that Miller has no prior criminal record, that Miller and co-operated to a degree and admitted molesting three brothers. He did not, however, agree with Carew’s minimizing of the abuse and told the court that there is no such thing as minor sexual abuse of a child.
Mr. Carew referred to the abuse of the boys as an egregious breach of trust, noted that Miler took the boys into his care , the parents had complete faith and trust in Miller as a priest, the boys were assaulted when they were completely under his care, and there was no chance for escape from Miller’s mother’s home. He told the court that the trips were grooming of boys from disadvantaged families.
There was some mention made by Carew referring to some expert report that Father Miller is not a paedophile . Mr. Nichol said that is that is fact, and if Father Miller is not a paedophile, then surely moral culpability rises significantly?
In response to the claim that Miller went to Southdown of his own volition, Nichol noted that the reports from Southdown went to the bishop, not to Miller. He added that if, according to the Federoff Report and Miller, Miller has no problem, why then did he go to Southdown?
Nichol also told the court that although Miller does not deny what he did to the boys, he minimizes his actions by denying forethought, and he, Miller, said that he did not think the incidents were harmful to boys. According to the Federhoff report Miller apparently does not remember the interaction with the boys being a sexual thing. He claimed it was game. It seemed he “Always had some answer that there was not a sexual component”
In the Southdown report Miller allegedly made made reference to “the accusations from so long ago,” and, as the Crown pointed out, the word “accusations” is very telling
According to Nichol the 27 July 1999 Southdown assessment demonstrates Miller’s denial – Father Miller apparently remembers the horseplay and ticking of the boy’s genitals but does not see a sexual component to it.
Miller presumably claims that it was only in the early 90s that he realized what he was doing was problematic. Nichols suggested this is ridiculous, and queried how Miller did not understand the sexual component?
Crown said these are not comments of someone who accepts and admits that he is guilty. Miller allegedly did the same thing with police – he repeated in a police interview that there was nothing sexual to his interaction with the boys
There was mention made of Father Miller somewhere at some time “tearing up at his lack of insight” Mr. Nichol saw that as an element of remorse.
The Crown is opposed to giving credits for Miller’s time in Southdown.
He asked for a sentence of seven to nine months.
What?
People were aghast.
Did we hear right?
Seven to nine months! for the rape of five young souls?
After discussion with judge as to whether sentencing should run concurrently or consecutively Nichol was asked to review his proposal at luncn time. After lunch this is his proposal:
40 days per victim for the sex abuse of each of four victims, and four months for the sex abuse of one victim, for a total of nine months. An insult. How will the judge rule? We shall see. Sentencing will be pronounced Thursday 29 November 2013 at 09:30 am Pembroke Ontario courthouse