A double murderer does not need to develop insight into what makes him a risk to others before being released on full parole, the Parole Board of Canada says in a written explanation of its decision last Friday in the case of George Harding Lovie.
Mr. Lovie, now 65, murdered Arnold and Donna Edwards, and attempted to murder their daughter, Michele, on March 21, 1991. A month earlier, he had been charged with the rape of Michele Edwards, and was freed on bail. Evidence at his murder trial showed he was in denial about the rape and blamed Ms. Edwards’s parents for her unwillingness to reconcile with him.
His denial of the sexual assault continued in his parole hearing last Friday, when he referred to it as “allegations.” Previous parole board reports, which have denied him full parole, have said his insight into himself and his actions was contingent on accepting responsibility for the sexual assault. He has been on day parole since 2019, and for the past year has been allowed to stay five nights a week in his own apartment in the Sudbury area.
Mr. Lovie told board members Howard Bruce and Maureen Gauci at Friday’s hearing that he is not a risk when he lives in the community.
In its written decision to grant Mr. Lovie full parole, Mr. Bruce and Ms. Gauci said they do not believe Mr. Lovie will develop insight into the sexual assault he committed or what makes him a risk to public safety. But they said his lack of insight should not keep from him being fully paroled, on conditions, because he has kept the peace while on day parole.
“The file information and your presentation at the hearing reveals a continued lack of insight into your risk factors,” they wrote in their ruling. “The Board is aware that a lack of insight does not in of itself [sic] equate to an increase in risk.”
They added: “In your case, given your engrained personality traits such as need for control, rigid thinking, and egocentricity, that are noted in the psychological assessments over the years, your level of insight is unlikely to improve/increase at this point in your sentence.”
Unlike in the United States, Canada has neither the death penalty nor life without eligibility for parole. First-degree murder brings a mandatory sentence of life with eligibility for day parole at 22 years and full parole after 25 years. It is now 33 years since the murders took place.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a 2011 law that allowed judges to add together 25 years of parole ineligibility for each first-degree murder. That led to a reduction in parole terms for more than 10 multiple killers sentenced since 2011, including Alexandre Bissonnette, who shot and killed six Muslim worshippers at a Quebec City mosque in 2017.
The parole board held its hearing two weeks after the RCMP issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Lovie when he went off his approved driving route while on a pass and did not respond to the buzzing of his ankle monitor or calls on his cellphone. Federal authorities advised family members of the victims to put their safety plans into effect.
Mr. Lovie said he had not felt the buzzing or heard the calls. He said he had used the same route the previous month while visiting his stepmother in Brantford, Ont., a short drive away from Hamilton, where the murders occurred and where family members of the victims still live. His parole officer endorsed Mr. Lovie’s account of the incident, and the board accepted it without reservation in its written ruling.
Despite saying Mr. Lovie’s lack of insight does not create additional risk, the board imposed a nightly curfew on him, beginning at 10 p.m. He must live in the Sudbury area but may apply for passes to drive to Brantford – though not for extended stays. Mr. Lovie had stated his intention to apply for a transfer of his parole to Brantford. The board called this statement evidence of “rigid thinking, a high level of entitlement, lack of victim empathy, and coercive exertion of power and control.”
Scott Newark, a former Alberta prosecutor and former adviser to public-safety ministers at the federal and provincial levels, said the board’s willingness to look beyond Mr. Lovie’s lack of insight suggests a culture of “GTO and KTO – get them out and keep them out.” He was also concerned about the board’s failure to note whether it had checked Mr. Lovie’s non-response with the National Monitoring Centre that oversees the electronic monitoring.
“He said, ‘oh, I didn’t hear my electronic monitoring bracelet go off.’ I find that a little incredible, yet they accept his word for it,” Mr. Newark said.
Steve Sullivan, a former federal ombudsman for victims of crime and current chief executive officer at MADD Canada, said the board saw full parole as the next step in the process, given Mr. Lovie’s largely successful day parole.
“In some ways, this is how it’s supposed to work,” he said, adding: “There’s no such thing as no risk. It’s a question of manageable risk.”
Eleven family members of the victims told the board hearing they still experience daily fear. An adult grandson said he has legally purchased a gun to defend himself against Mr. Lovie. Don Edwards, a son and former NHL goalie, said if he and Mr. Lovie bump into each other he expects a fatal confrontation to ensue. Mr. Edwards could not be reached for comment on Thursday.