Sentencing an enigma
Former RCMP intelligence officer, Cameron Ortis, gets 14 years; to serve seven and a half years
Justice Robert Maranger of the Ontario Superior court handed down his sentencing decision in the case of Cameron Ortis this morning. Before he began, he asked Cameron Ortis whether he wished to say anything. Ortis maintained his silence.
Justice Maranger noted the unprecedented nature of the case, both in the charges laid under the Security of Information Act and the Criminal Code and the fact that it represented the first verdict brought down in a jury trial. He also noted that Mr. Ortis remained, throughout the proceedings, “somewhat of an enigma.” As Maranger said, “the why here remains a mystery.”
In addition to the unprecedented nature of the case, Justice Maranger had to wrestle with what he called “starkly different” submissions on an appropriate sentence, with the prosecution calling for a 22-25 year sentence, less 5 years credit for time served, so between 17 and 20 years. Defence counsel, on the other hand, argued for a 7 year sentence, but with 7 years credit for time served, so immediate release.
Justice Maranger indicated that he found the crown’s position excessive, but that the defence position failed to properly recognize the principles of the gravity of the offence and the degree of moral culpability of the offender.
So, what did Maranger impose?…Excuse the tease, but I want to follow Justice Maranger’s reasoning before the reveal.
He said his task was not to choose between these positions, but to follow the principles of proportional and just sentencing. That meant that he needed to consider the aspects of deterrence and denunciation of the crime in his sentencing; and to weigh the gravity of the offense and the degree of blameworthiness of Mr. Ortis.
The balancing involved first, some key factors in the case, including that Ortis was in a high-ranking position, with access to a lot of highly classified intelligence; that he betrayed the trust placed in him; that he potentially put lives at risk; and that he acted for the benefit of criminal organizations. Justice Maranger also stated that Ortis had undermined Canada’s reputation among its Five Eyes intelligence partners, and that Canada’s standing with our partners “may never be the same.” Perhaps a slight exaggeration. Certainly in Maranger’s eyes the gravity of the offence was on the severe side.
It was also clear that Justice Maranger was impressed by the letters of character reference received from Ortis’s friends and family members. He stressed they indicated that Ortis was of “historically good character.” This was also to be factored into the sentence.
Maranger took the court through a reading of two somewhat similar espionage cases, those involving Joseph Ratkai and Jeffrey Delilse. In both cases the defendants pled guilty. The Ratkai affair was a Cold War case involving a sting operation by Canadian and US authorities that ensnared the hapless would-be Soviet agent—his sentence, handed down by a Newfoundland court, was 10 years. Delisle got a longer sentence of 20 years for his provision of classified intelligence to the Russian GRU intelligence organization over a four-year period from 2007 to 2011. Maranger noted that the Delisle case was arguably more serious than that in Ortis, but that in any case he did not feel obliged to follow the sentencing pattern in either decision.
OK, time to cut to the chase. Maranger imposed a 14-year sentence, essentially halfway between the crown and defence positions. He did call Ortis’s lengthy period of pre-trial detention “harsh and punitive,” and awarded him significant credit for time served, both in custody and under house arrest of 2400 days (nearly two years more credit than the crown argued for).
Ortis will thus serve a custodial sentence of seven and a half years, with Maranger recommending he be allowed to serve his time in a B.C. penitentiary so as to be close to his family.
One final note, Justice Maranger observed at the outset that higher courts will undoubtedly weigh in on the outcome of the trial. Whether a judicial appeal process will bring us any closer to understanding the enigma of Cameron Ortis remains doubtful. That would take some soul-baring from Ortis himself.
Latest news is that the Crown has appealed the Judge's sentence and asserted its original position of a 22-25 year sentence.
I remain convinced that the issue of denunciation of the crime and the clear lack of remorse (well, other than remorse at being caught!) are paramount issues in this case. Further, I find the consideration of the convict's "good character" to be inappropriate and inapplicable.
I am glad that the Crown has appealed the sentence.