Judge’s Ruling In JSR Sentence Covers Wide Range Of Issues

It was one of the longest addresses many veteran court observers can recall hearing. But when Mr. Justice Ian Nordheimer finally delivered his ruling on sentencing Jorrell Simpson-Rowe, formerly known as JSR, as an adult , police and the family of murder victim Jane Creba both seemed to feel that justice was done.

Here’s a partial transcript of just some of what the judge had to say and the factors that influenced his decision.


Mr. Simpson-Roe had a troubled, indeed I would say depressing, upbringing. His father was a drug dealer who was deported from Canada in 1997 when Mr. Simpson-Rowe was nine-years-old. Mr. Simpson-Rowe was left with his mother with whom he did not have a very good relationship.

It appears that Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s mother had a problem with alcohol and there is some evidence that she was physically abusive towards Mr. Simpson-Rowe. Mr. Simpson-Rowe also had a falling out with his older brother who, it appears, has also had problems with the law. Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s educational performance was spotty.

He had many difficulties while at school that led to a number of suspensions. These events also led to him being moved to different schools. In fact, Mr. Simpson-Rowe was in nine different schools in nine years. Some of these issues may have been caused by the fact that Mr. Simpson-Rowe has demonstrated features of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder for which he has never been properly treated.

Mr. Simpson-Rowe has been in custody for more than three years. His behaviour while in custody has also not been without its problems. There have been a number of incidents involving staff and other young persons during his stay in the youth facilities. However, during this time, Mr. Simpson-Rowe has applied himself to his education and has completed his grade 9 and 10 credits and is working on his grade 11 credits.

The report.difficult upbringing that Mr. Simpson-Rowe has had that I have already.recounts that Mr. Simpson-Rowe has fathered two children – one who is now seven and the other who is now four. It also notes that Mr. Simpson-Rowe has a history of abusing both alcohol and marijuana.

Mr. Simpson-Rowe was subjected to a number of tests as part of a psychological assessment. By way of summary, these tests showed that Mr. Simpson-Rowe reported more emotional problems than would be typical for persons of his age. The issue of anger management is again a pervasive theme throughout the report. Of some importance to that fact is that the report records that Mr. Simpson-Rowe does not perceive himself to have significant problems with anger or aggression.

In terms of risk assessment, the various tests undertaken show that Mr. Simpson-Rowe is at a high risk of reoffending. While there is some suggestion of psychopathic personality traits, the report cautions that it is generally unwise to place too much reliance on test results for young persons since a person’s personality is not fully formed until at least one’s mid-20s.

The report does note that there is a likeable quality about Mr. Simpson-Rowe, that he has a good sense of humour and that he has received positive comments at times in the institutions in which he has been held.

I do not accept the characterization of Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s participation in the events of that afternoon as the least culpable form of homicide. That submission, I fear, obscures and diminishes the true nature of the events that took place. The passage of time, and the fact that other similar acts of random violence involving other innocent persons have since occurred in this city, must not allow us to lose sight of the truly appalling nature of these events.

It is true that Mr. Simpson-Rowe did not bring the gun down to Yonge Street. It is also true that Mr. Simpson-Rowe received the gun from another participant. It is also true that Mr. Simpson-Rowe, a teenaged boy, had only an instant to consider what he would then do. Those facts might well excuse the decision to take the gun but they do not excuse the decision to fire the gun – fire the gun between two and seven times I would add.

The moral culpability of Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s actions in that regard is, in my view, very high. It is conduct that the Court of Appeal in the certiorari application in this matter said properly attracted the “high degree of moral blameworthiness needed to justify the stigma of a murder conviction.

Mr. Simpson-Rowe is still maturing in terms of his brain development. Recognizing that fact is not the same thing, however, as saying that Mr. Simpson-Rowe was incapable, at the time, of deciding right from wrong. He had many opportunities to learn the difference between the two although, unfortunately, there does not appear to have been anyone around to reinforce to Mr. Simpson-Rowe the important difference between them.

Given the opportunity to choose, it appears that Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s general inclination was towards the wrong but easy way over the right but harder way. His attitude through most of his teenaged years appears to have been very much one of not just m first but one of me only. This attitude emerges still. It emerges, for example, in Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s apparent lack of empathy for what happened to Ms. Creba that is reflected in his response when it was pointed out that the shoot-out was the cause of her death:

How do they know she wouldn’t have been hit by a car or something?

It emerges as well in his attitude towards the mother of his two children, who he apparently keeps in contact with because, as Mr. Simpson-Rowe put it, he is:

F***ing with her mind so I can grab them [his children] when I get out.

Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s character flaws are, to a degree, understandable given his background. I do not intend to repeat all of the detail in regard from the assessment report. It is sufficient by way of summary to say that Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s upbringing, especially his lack of proper parental involvement and supervision, undoubtedly led him to where he is today.

The legitimate frustration that any outside observer would feel at this often repeating scenario of parental omission giving rise to adolescent criminal activity does not change the fact that the court must deal with Mr. Simpson-Rowe as he is, not as we would have wished him to be.

The realities of Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s background may explain his current situation but they do not absolve him of all personal responsibility for his acts; nor do they alter the reality that Mr. Simpson-Rowe poses a clear challenge in terms of any prospect for his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. His record, his other encounters with the police, his anger management and related problems and the test results from the assessment, all point to a likelihood of his committing further offences in the future.

I have concluded that an adult sentence is necessary in this case. I believe that a youth sentence would fail to address the seriousness of the offence and Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s role in it. It would fail to hold Mr. Simpson-Rowe accountable for what he chose to do.

An adult sentence, a sentence of life imprisonment, might, at first blush, seem to have tipped the scales to another extreme. However, that reaction fails to take into account the reduced parole ineligibility period. That reduced period of parole ineligibility, which I will note amounts to less than four years after taking into account his pre-sentence custody, not only allows for further time in as structured environment for Mr. Simpson-Rowe to demonstrate that he will continue on the progressive path that he has recently begun, it also allows for continued management of Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s problems while at the same time allowing for his maturing to be completed.

It provides a better chance for Mr. Simpson-Rowe to
rehabilitate himself and reintegrate into our society and for the authorities to monitor Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s progress in that regard. At the same time, it provides necessary measure of protection to the public to ensure that Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s re-entry into our society takes places when it appears that the degree of rehabilitation necessary for that return has occurred.

I have concluded therefore that Mr. Simpson-Rowe must be subject to an adult sentence. 

Mr. Justice Ian Nordheimer

Top Stories

Top Stories

Most Watched Today