Advertisement

Franck Gervais case effectively allowed victim, offender to repair harm

Franck Gervais case effectively allowed victim, offender to repair harm

The collaborative justice process used in the case involving the fake Remembrance Day sergeant focuses on repairing harm, handing over control to the victim and offender, a criminal defence lawyer says.

Eric Granger, who is on the board of directors for the Collaborative Justice Program at the Ottawa courthouse, told CBC Radio's Ottawa Morning that the program's goal is to repair the harm caused by a crime, while still holding the offender responsible.

In the case of Franck Gervais, the process involved a tour of the National Military Cemetery in Ottawa on Aug. 1 with Gerald S. Wharton, a retired major.

Wharton told the court he left the meeting believing Gervais's actions "had no malicious intent," which helped ease the sentence against the 33-year-old from Cantley, Que.

On Tuesday, Gervais received one-year probation and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service with the Collaborative Justice Program.

On Nov. 11, 2014, Gervais was seen live on CBC News with the Medal of Bravery, the Special Service Medal with one bar, the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal, the NATO Medal for Kosovo and a Canadian Forces Decoration for 12 years of service.

Gervais, who is not a member of the Canadian Forces, pleaded guilty in March to charges of unlawful use of military uniforms and unlawful use of military decoration while dressed as a sergeant.

During sentencing Tuesday, he told the court he intended to pay homage to soldiers and veterans and didn't mean to offend anyone. Wharton said that came across when the two met and spoke.

"[Gervais] knelt at each headstone, placed a poppy on the grave and put his hand upon the headstone and it showed true remorse and true honour and I was very impressed," Wharton said.

Meaningful, active participation for victim, offender

Wharton called collaborative justice an "extremely successful concept," which showed the strengths of such a process, according to Granger.

"In a typical criminal law case, there's a lack of meaningful participation for victim and offender," he said.

"[This process is] for the offender to get a sense of truly what the harm is they've caused, for the victim to get a sense of why this happened, why them, to address some of their feelings and the harm that's been caused to them."

Granger said the victim and offender decide how the collaborative justice process plays out. If an offender is only involved to ease the sentence, that rarely works, he added.

As in Gervais's case, the judge will take into account the entire collaborative justice process when handing out a sentence, including accounts from the victim.

"If the sole goal of the accused person going in is to end up with a better result, usually there's no better judge than the person you victimized as to the level of sincerity," Granger said.

Collaborative justice can't be used in all criminal cases because there needs to be an identifiable victim. Those cases can also include various types of assaults, break and enters, home invasions or driving offences involving injuries.

The engine behind the process is remorse, where an offender has to realize and appreciate the harm that's been caused, Granger said.

"It's one thing to go into court and stand before a judge and say 'I'm guilty.' It's quite another to either directly or indirectly be dealing with the victim and be held to account for what you've done."