Dad's 12-year jail term for abusing infant son upheld (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada)

Dad KEVIN EDWARDS received a 12-year-prison term for abusing his 2-month-old son. Dad's attempt at an appeal has been dismisssed. The baby is paralyzed, blind, and developmentally disabled from his injuries.

Appeals court rules Edwards jail term a fit sentence
Posted By LINDA RICHARDSON, THE SAULT STAR
Posted 3 hours ago

The 12-year-prison term Kevin Edwards received for inflicting "horrendous abuse'' on his infant son is a proper sentence, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded last week.

The province's highest court dismissed the 50-year-old man's appeal of both his sentence and conviction following a hearing Thursday in Toronto.

In a four-page written decision released Monday, the three-member panel outlined why it rejected the Sault Ste. Marie man's numerous grounds for appeal.

Pointing to Edwards' "egregious breach of trust,'' the seriousness and prolonged nature of the injuries and the "devastating impact'' of the injuries, the court also described the penitentiary term imposed by Superior Court Justice Gladys Pardu as a fit sentence.

"Baby" Kevin was just two and a half months old when he suffered "brutal and sustained physical abuse'' at the hands of his father.

As a result of the horrendous abuse that occurred four years ago, the child has been "permanently and gravely injured."

"He has been left in a state of permanent paralysis and suffers from blindness, complete cognitive stagnation and constant discomfort,'' the court noted.

"He will never live a normal life and will require constant care.''

Edwards' lawyer Michael Bennett cited trial fairness, Pardu's jury charge, the judge's treatment of opinion evidence given by the Crown's expert on child abuse, and the admission of certain statements Edwards made to police, in his bid to overturn the conviction.

The appeal court wasn't persuaded that trial fairness was compromised in the ways alleged.

It found that many of the procedural matters the appellant suggested caused unfairness, were the result of defence counsel trial conduct decisions.

As well, the court said there was no error in the trial judge's jury charge or in her treatment of the Crown's expert evidence.

The defence accepted the witness's medial expertise at trial and failed to object to that part of the testimony "now impugned.'' The evidence being attacked came in response to cross-examination, the court said.

"It was open to the appellant to object to the testimony at issue. He failed to do so.''

The court of appeal also described the Crown's case against Edwards as "overwhelming."

Edwards admitted to police that he shook his son on several occasions and that he saw his wife physically assault the baby at least once without interfering.

He conceded that he was a party to the abuse allegedly inflicted by Treena Edwards, the court said.

"But there is more,'' the decision noted.

Edwards also admitted to police that he was with his son at the time, when according to the expert evidence, "the acute injury to his son's brain and head was inflicted.''

The higher court judges agreed with the Crown that Edwards own version of events, together with the prosecution's uncontested medical evidence, provided a firm evidential foundation on which the jury could return guilty verdicts.

A jury found Edwards guilty of aggravated assault, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and failing to provide the necessities of life in November 2007.

He was sentenced to the penitentiary term in May 2008.

Edwards faced a further eight years, nine months in prison after credit for pretrial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

Treena Edwards' trial is slated to resume later this month.