WARNING: This story contains details that could be upsetting to readers.
A man convicted of "horrific acts of sexual violence" that involved the abuse of a young girl is being granted access to a court-appointed lawyer to appeal his 12-year sentence.
The B.C. Court of Appeals ruled on July 4 that Preston Cory Dickens can access free legal help to challenge his sentence. The court stopped short of allowing him court-appointed legal aid to appeal the conviction, finding he had "no reasonable prospect of success."
Dickens was found guilty of hundreds of acts of sexual abuse perpetrated against a girl between the ages of eight and ten that took place from 2017 to 2019. He was found with images and video of the acts on his phone.
His sentence of 12 years was given considering the severity of the offences, his likelihood of reoffending and his lack of remorse.
"Although willing to participate in counselling and other forms of treatment, he was not viewed as 'overly motivated to change his behaviour as he does not believe there is a need to do so,'" Court of Appeals Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten wrote in the appeals court decision.
Dickens argues that he had insufficient representation at trial and should be able to appeal his conviction. The court found it is not in the interests of justice to allow him free legal representation after what was determined to be a fair, though not perfect, trial. The trial was judge-alone and did not involve a jury.
He contends that his arguments in his defence at the trial were not properly explored or considered, and his lawyer did not challenge the admission of certain evidence, such as his phone.
He argues that he did not know how the images came to be on his device and that the girl involved initiated the contact.
"The judge did not believe him," the appeals court decision said. "She described his testimony as 'often border[ing] on the preposterous.' He was 'often evasive and belligerent under cross-examination.'"
Despite all this, DeWitt-Van Oosten found that the sentence is still long for a first-time offender and that he deserved to have this reviewed and be represented by a lawyer in that appeal. The justice adds that there is also "some indication" Dickens was not provided the best advice by his lawyer about how to argue for his sentence to be reduced.
DeWitt-Van Oosten concludes by saying that even though she is allowing him a court-appointed lawyer, his case for a reduced sentence is not strong due to the "objective gravity of his offences."
