As you ride the TTC or the metro or the CTrain or the SkyTrain, warily eyeing but carefully avoiding eye contact with that dishevelled fellow who is ranting to himself while aggressively pacing, the issue of random stranger attacks may have crossed your mind. They’re still rare, but less so than before the pandemic.
Is Canada’s justice system – the interconnected but poorly communicating bureaucracies of police, courts, jails, bail, prisons, parole, probation, addiction services and mental health – equipped to curb them?
Apparently not.
Consider the case of Lionel Brian Williams, recently convicted of three random stranger attacks in Toronto. It’s a depressing story, all the more so because it is hardly unique.
On Nov. 27 last year, Mr. Williams punched a woman he did not know at the Dundas subway station, then walked away. Identified on video, he was arrested later that day and immediately released on a Form 10 undertaking, which is a promise to appear in court.
Four days later, Mr. Williams punched a random woman in the head on Dundas Street, causing her to fall into a lane of traffic. He was quickly found by police at a nearby homeless shelter, arrested, given a bail hearing and released.
Seven weeks later, a few blocks from the site of his previous attacks, Mr. Williams punched a woman who was walking her dog. Well known by police, he was again quickly identified and arrested. This time, he remained behind bars until trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. He was convicted on April 28 and sentenced on May 31.
To read Justice David Rose’s judgment in the case is to be left with the impression of a justice system gone AWOL.
Mr. Williams is a criminal law frequent flyer – a repeat customer who should be receiving the most attention and resources, in the interest of public safety. Instead, the various parts of the machinery of justice he has encountered, again and again, have simply gone through the motions, again and again – checking boxes and passing him along, surely knowing he’d harm someone else, surely knowing he’d be back. Catch, release, reoffend, repeat, yawn.
Mr. Williams is 36 years old and has been homeless since he was 18. His criminal history begins in 1998 and runs to six pages, according to Justice Rose.
“There are 25 entries for assaultive behavior,” the judge writes, “and 23 entries for failing to comply with court orders. The criminal record also documents extensive entries for property crimes.”
Yet his longest sentence was six months for assault causing bodily harm to a peace officer in 2020. The record is mostly one of “custodial sentences measured in days or weeks,” even though “Mr. Williams has been assaulting people regularly and continuously for over 15 years.”
This is unfortunately not an uncommon situation. To have a shot at making it less common, two big changes are needed. The first is the preferred option of conservatives. The second is favoured by liberals. They’re both partly right.
The first necessary fix is longer periods of detention and supervision – in some cases much longer – for a small cohort of repeat offenders.
“There is every reason to believe that Mr. Williams will attack a stranger violently at some time after he is released from custody,” Justice Rose writes. “With that said, I can only impose a custodial sentence which is permitted by law.” So the accused was sentenced to one year, less time served awaiting trial. He’ll be out by fall. He’ll also be on probation for three years.
This is madness. For a ticking time bomb that has exploded umpteen times before, and that there is every confidence will explode again, a longer separation from society is surely warranted.
But just as absurd is the lack of mental-health and addictions services to treat people like Mr. Williams. That’s the second urgently needed fix: Bombs don’t defuse themselves.
Justice Rose notes that Mr. Williams “self reports as being diagnosed with schizophrenia,” but there is “no case history” and “no follow-up plan. … Apparently he is not under the care of any mental health professions.”
What’s more, his presentencing report had “no history of his dealings and contact with probation personnel despite having been the subject of several probation orders.”
Justice Rose continues: “What is frustrating for the court is that there are limited options available on sentencing which will reduce the likelihood of re-offending.” That’s about as damning a statement as a judge can make. Reducing the likelihood of a criminal reoffending is the point of a justice system.
“What is needed is a more robust supervision and help program for those offenders who have some combination of a history of violence, mental health challenges, homelessness and substance abuse issues.”
Making that happen will take more than just longer sentences for persistent offenders, or orders compelling them to get treatment. It will also take money: for housing, for more probation and parole officers, and to fund robust mental-health and addiction services for the thousands of deeply troubled people – broken people, not criminal masterminds – who make up so much of the justice system’s repeat clientele.
Wouldn’t it be enlightened self-interest to invest in that?