A Yorkton child abduction case has come to an end after nearly two years with the sentencing of Melvin Dale Koroluk, 59, to two years less a day in prison.
In her decision, read at Court of Queen's Bench in Yorkton April 10, Madam Justice C. L. Dawson, agreed with the Crown that the primary consideration in sentencing was denunciation and deterrence. The defence had asked for a similar term, but to be served in the community.
Koroluk pleaded guilty in December to a reduced charge of taking, without lawful authority, an unmarried person under the age of 16 years, out of the possession of her lawful guardian. He had previously been charged with kidnapping after abducting the 10-year-old female victim from the Yorkton Exhibition in July 2011.
At a sentencing hearing March 8, the Crown and defence submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. Darren Grindle, representing the Queen, also filed a transcript of testimony from the victim presented at the preliminary inquiry.
Dave Rusnak, Koroluk's counsel, consented to the transcript being filed saying consent was not an admission by his client to all of the evidence given by the victim.
"While the accused did not admit the evidence of S.A. taken at the preliminary hearing, the accused called no evidence at the sentencing hearing to refute the evidence of S.A.," Dawson wrote.
The evidence
On July 6, 2011, Koroluk lured the young girl from the games area at the exhibition to his car by telling her he was going to get money so they could play the "money machines."
Once at his car, parked a couple blocks from the fairgrounds, Koroluk told the girl it was too hot to walk back and said he would drive them back. After they got into the car he drove past the exhibition and continued west out of the city where he turned right on a gravel road continuing past Hwy 16 to an isolated area.
He stopped the car and told the victim he would give her some money "if she was nice." She said she didn't want any money. He then told her lie down and struck her on the cheek with his hand when she refused to comply.
She managed to get one leg out the window. Koroluk grabbed the other leg saying he would give her money and take her back to the fair if she came back.
Ultimately the girl was able to escape from his grasp and from the car. She ran off into a field of tall grass ducking out of sight whenever she saw vehicles for fear Koroluk had gone to get someone to help him.
Eventually, Lawrence Pindus, a truck driver for LDM Foods noticed a girl pop up in one of the canola fields near the processing plant then duck back down. Initially he shrugged it off as kids playing in the field, but on a return trip, he saw her again walking down the road. When she saw his truck she hid in the grass. Now concerned, Pindus alerted his dispatcher to call the authorities.
Yorkton RCMP assigned Cst. Vicente to investigate. When the girl saw the police car she flagged the constable down. She was crying and upset and told Vicente she wanted to go home.
On July 11, the victim and her mother, along with several family members were walking down Broadway Street when she spotted Koroluk. Her mother immediately started chasing Koroluk yelling, "stop that man, he's the one that kidnapped that little girl."
Harley Kaye saw and heard the commotion from his vehicle parked near the Parker Quine Building. He chased Koroluk under citizen's arrest and waited for police to arrive.
The circumstances
In her sentencing deliberations, Justice Dawson considered nine aggravating circumstances supported by a presentence report and victim statements from the girl and her mother:
1. That the victim was a complete stranger to Koroluk.
2. That she was a 10-year-old child.
3. That he lured her to his car with promises of money.
4. That the crime left the child with deep and lasting psychological and emotional trauma.
5. That the crime left the victim's mother with lasting trauma.
6. That Koroluk failed to notify anyone that he had left the girl alone in the country.
7. That a presentence report indicated he had little insight into his actions and poses an ongoing risk to the community, albeit a small one.
8. That abduction is a very serious matter.
9. That Koroluk put the girl at further risk by not telling anyone of her situation.
Dawson also cited mitigating circumstances in her judgment supported by letters from a neighbour, a friend and a former pastor, as well as, primary and sex offender risk assessments conducted by a probation officer in preparing the presentence report:
1. That Koroluk pleaded guilty, albeit after the preliminary hearing.
2. That the crime appeared to be more spontaneous than planned.
3. That Koroluk is supported by members of the community.
4. That he had no criminal record.
5. That the incident was relatively short-lived.
6. That the girl had no lasting physical injuries.
7. That Koroluk had abided by the stringent conditions of his release for almost two years.
8. That he has the support of his family.
9. That he was agreeable to conditions being imposed.
10. That he is a low risk to re-offend.
11. That he feels remorseful.
The Sentence
Judges are obligated under the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to determine whether there are less restrictive sanctions than imprisonment that could accomplish the objectives of sentencing.
At the March sentencing hearing, Grindle argued that denunciation and deterrence were the primary objectives in this case. He cited several pieces of case law involving the abduction of children with prison terms ranging from six months to two years, nine months.
Rusnak countered that none of the submitted decisions were truly comparable to his client's case focusing mainly on the fact that the victim was only in Koroluk's car for approximately 15 minutes and that the others cases had indications of premeditation and the defendants had prior criminal records. He argued that a conditional sentence was definitely available to the judge given the mitigating circumstances.
While the judge did list the duration of the event as mitigating, she qualified that by saying "most of the credit for that really goes to the child S.A. who had the good sense to jump out and run."
Ultimately Dawson sided with the prosecution.
"As to the submission that a conditional sentence is merited, I consider that to be inappropriate as I am of the view that a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect deterrence and denunciation in this matter," she wrote.
"In these circumstances, the principles of denunciation and general deterrence must outweigh the principles of rehabilitation."
She called the crime "particularly egregious" and said the sentence must "reflect the community's repugnance and the need of protection of those who might attempt to conduct themselves in a similar fashion."
Once released from prison, Koroluk will spend two years on probation with the standard conditions plus mandatory assessment and programming as required by his probation officer, no contact in any way directly or indirectly with his victim and that he is not to obtain or continue employment or be a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority toward persons under the age of 18 years.
