Judge questions ‘remorse’ of senior convicted of two White Rock sex assaults

*WARNING*: The following story deals with disturbing details about sexual assault.

The issue of “remorse” is usually factored into any criminal sentencing, and one B.C. Supreme Court judge questioned just what a senior was remorseful about after being convicted of two sexual assaults that took place in White Rock.

Justice Christopher Greenwood sentenced Darren Robert Sorensen, 60, to three years in prison for each of the offences, but ruled they would be served concurrently and not consecutively – meaning he will serve three years instead of six. Sorensen was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman only identified as J.H. Sorensen must also submit a DNA sample to be put on a registry.

J.H. was “highly intoxicated” and in her own home during both sexual assaults, the court ruling said. Sorensen was a “close family friend” of the young woman and “she considered him to be like an uncle,” the court ruling said. At one point during the first sexual assault, Sorensen told J.H. to “be quiet” as her fiancé was asleep in the next room, the court ruling said. A similar attempt to make J.H. remain quiet was made during the second sexual assault, the court ruling said.

The Crown was seeking a sentence of three to four years in prison, while the defence was seeking a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

Greenwood wrote in his ruling that a conditional sentence was not appropriate.

REASONS FOR SENTENCING

The court ruling offers a glimpse into how judges calculate what should be an appropriate sentence.

Greenwood detailed an array of factors to be considered, including the issue of the “remorse” of the offender. This issue was a particular sticking point for the judge.

While Greenwood wrote that he accepts that Sorensen “has some genuine regret and remorse and concern for other people,” the judge had some concerns about the offender referring to the two sexual assaults as an “extramarital affair.” Sorensen is married.

“In my view, the references to an affair and extramarital affair and Mr. Sorensen’s descriptions of his own actions tend to demonstrate that he does not have true insight into his conduct, the inherent violence of the offence, or the harm caused by it,” the judge wrote. “For those reasons, remorse is entitled to very little weight in the circumstances, in my view. If the path to remorse is a journey, Mr. Sorensen has not yet arrived at the destination.”

The Crown in the case argued that Sorensen had “qualified remorse, and it appears to be a remorse for his marriage,” said the court ruling.

The judge also looked at several aggravating factors in denying a conditional sentence. The judge ruled that Sorensen took advantage of Sorensen while she was intoxicated and understood what was happening was wrong by telling her to be quiet, the court ruling said.

“I also find it aggravating that on both occasions, Mr. Sorensen told J.H. to be quiet while he was sexually assaulting her,” the judge wrote. “That can be seen as a step taken to avoid detection, but also an exercise of control over J.H. at the time of the offence.”

Another aggravating factor was the close ties Sorensen had with J.H.’s family, something he “exploited to his advantage.”

“Another aggravating factor to consider is the fact that there were two separate incidents of sexual assault separated in time,” said the court ruling. “This suggests that Mr. Sorensen proceeded on the second occasion without reflection and with no regard for J.H.’s interests or the importance of her sexual integrity. In my view, it is not necessary to definitively determine which offence took place first as, either way, the second offence could only be considered as highly aggravating. Both incidents were highly‑invasive events that would foreseeably cause untold harm to the psychological and mental health of J.H.”

The judge also must look at any mitigating factors. Greenwood detailed the many letters of support Sorensen received, plus the lack of a criminal record and his “ties to the community.”

“I accept, based on the cumulative total of the defence materials, that the prospects of rehabilitation in Mr. Sorensen’s case are strong and that overall he is a relatively low risk to reoffend, as far as that can ever be determined,” the judge wrote.

The defence wanted a conditional sentence that include a period of house arrest, 240 hours of community service, plus counselling and treatment.

In the end, the judge was not persuaded by this proposal.

“While I would not discount the mitigating factors, and I must not do so, I do not consider them sufficiently compelling or such as to reduce the moral blameworthiness of the offence and take this case outside of the appropriate range of sentence described in the appellate cases I have already cited,” the judge wrote.

J.H. also gave a victim impact statement, which Greenwood wrote about in his ruling.

“In addition to J.H.’s testimony at trial in which she described her shock, being stunned, and not knowing how to react, as well as the loss of power that she felt, she also provided and read out a victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing,” the court ruling said. “The victim impact statement is thoughtful and heartfelt. J.H. sees herself as a different person since these offences and has become less trusting of others, less joyous, and has suffered symptoms that she described of PTSD, depression, anxiety, self‑blame, and panic attacks, among other difficulties.

“She struggles to interact with people, especially men. Her work has suffered and she described the events as having shattered her trust, serenity, and innocence. As is the case with many victims of sexual assault, J.H. feels ashamed, even though intellectually she knows she should not feel that way. I do not intend to summarize everything in the victim impact statement. I have no hesitation in concluding that the effects on J.H.’s mental and psychological health have been profound.”