Arviat man goes to prison for sexual assault, harassment of woman
Nunavut Court of Justice releases judge’s sentencing decision following guilty verdict handed down in May
Arviat man Peter Adjuk is going to prison for two and half years after Justice Paul Bychok handed down his sentence this week. Adjuk, was convicted earlier this year of sexual assault and criminal harassment that occurred in October 2022. (File photo)
An Arviat man has been handed a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting and harassing a woman in Baker Lake nearly two years ago.
The Nunavut Court of Justice released Justice Paul Bychok’s sentencing decision Friday, after the judge found 37-year-old Peter Adjuk guilty on May 23 of two counts of sexual assault and criminal harassment for crimes he committed in 2022.
Bychok sentenced Adjuk to 18 months for sexual assault and one year for criminal harassment. The sentences are to be served consecutively in prison, Bychok ruled.
The judge rejected the defence lawyer’s proposal of a six-month conditional sentence, saying it would “bring well-deserved mockery upon the justice system.”
According to Bychok’s ruling, the victim — an Inuk woman — had been an “intimate partner” of Adjuk and the two had a sexual relationship that turned violent.
A court order prohibits the publication of the victim’s identity.
Early on Oct. 8, 2022, Adjuk — who “reeked of alcohol” — entered the woman’s bedroom in her Baker Lake home and demanded sex. She refused.
Adjuk’s actions then turned aggressive as he forcefully attempted to have sex with the victim as she fought back.
Described in Bychok’s ruling as a 15-minute “intense struggle,” Adjuk only refrained from further sexually assaulting the victim after she threatened to call her adult son for help.
After leaving her home, Adjuk continued to harass the victim, following her from place to place and causing her to “fear for her safety” while committing “predatory” actions, Bychok wrote.
Adjuk’s lawyer proposed a six-month conditional sentence, meaning he would not be incarcerated. He described Adjuk’s actions as being “out of character” and maintained he was a low risk to reoffend.
The defence’s conditional sentence proposal would have included three months of house arrest in Adjuk’s Arviat residence and three more months under a nighttime curfew, followed by 12 months’ probation.
Bychok disagreed.
“Arviat is a small hamlet and by the end of the first day of month four, the entire community would know that Mr. Adjuk was free to walk around town as if nothing serious had happened,” the judge wrote.
“To permit Mr. Adjuk to be free to walk the streets of Arviat while serving a jail sentence at home for a major sexual assault would bring well-deserved mockery upon the justice system.”
Adjuk has two previous criminal convictions, for assault with a weapon in 2007 and assault causing bodily harm in 2011.
The defence pointed to what it described as Adjuk’s active role in Arviat, where he was a hunter and sports coach. Adjuk also served as a bylaw officer; Bychok’s ruling did not say for how long.
However, Bychok said, Adjuk’s perpetration of a “major sexual assault” and the seriousness of non-consensual sexual touching led him to impose the maximum jail term possible in this case.
“This man that has re-offended twice is a low risk to re-offend.” – Defence
It is indeed unfortunate, Justice Bychok may retire in the next year or so.
He has shown on many occasions in his sentencing that Abuse of women is not acceptable and not tolerated in Nunavut.
It’s unfortunate that this article didn’t mention that Justice Bychok once again imposed a greater sentence than what the crown was asking for. Even the crown did not want a sentence served in a southern penitentiary, but Justice Bychok, as usual, went the penitentiary route.
John Murphy, I hope you’re right that a retirement may be coming soon. Nunavut has suffered too long. Crushing incarceration is not the answer, and I challenge Pauttutit to disagree with that. We all want meaningful sentences, but this constant stream of extreme penitentiary sentences that go well beyond what even the prosecutor is asking for, is that what we want… I’m sure that many people who comment here would say that’s exactly what they want. But, John Murphy, I so hope that you’re right and a retirement is imminent. Time for a change. I think it would be best for everybody.
Make Iqaluit Great Again – you never miss an opportunity to bash this judge. We get it without the repeated negative comments on every single decision he makes – you don’t like his sentences. I would suggest that you stop beating this dead horse and concentrate, as Mr. Murphy says, on the good that this judge does and his sentences do for the abused women of Nunavut. I also challenge Pauttutit to say this sentence is not good for a repeat abuser – gets him out of the community and Nunavut. Crushing incarceration – 2.5 years? Hardly. Maybe in the southern pen, he will get the help he so obviously needs.
I’m not judge bashing. I’m merely stating facts and offering fair comment on those facts. This judge routinely imposes sentences that are twice or three times as long or longer than any other judge in our territory would impose for the same case. We have this judge who proudly operates as an outlier in this territory in terms of what all the other judges are doing when it comes to sentencing. Now, maybe he’s the only one who has it “figured out” and all of the other judges are “out to lunch” and doing a disservice to the territory when it comes to sentencing. But either way, no one can ignore this extremely wide canyon that exists between this judge and all the other judges when it comes to sentencing philosophy in Nunavut, and I find that to be quite disturbing. I think we owe it to our territory to have an open and candid discussion about this divergence in approach without being accused of judge bashing. This is so important. Nunavut not only has the highest rate of victimization in Canada, but we also have the highest rate of incarceration. Every Inuit family has a brother, father, son, mother, daughter or sister who has been incarcerated for a significant period of time. Nunavut deserves a policy on sentencing that is at least somewhat consistent accross the board, and not this status quo where offenders can expect prison sentences three times as long that they would otherwise get if they have the bad luck of getting a certain judge. This isn’t right in my humble opinion and we need an open discussion about this.
Make Iqaluit Great Again – I do not see your comments as “fair” and I do see them as judge bashing, as you routinely make negative comments on this particular judge. You “proudly” state “facts” but all of your “facts” are qualified by subjective and judgemental terms – extremely, proudly, twice or three times as long, quite, humble opinion. And in case you don’t understand, judges are appointed by the Prime Minister’s office; what would be accomplished by folks in Nunavut having an “open and candid discussion” about something that we have no or little control over? And by having, or wanting, such a conversation, why do you hide behind anonymity by posting, always, as Make Iqaluit Great Again. Why not identify yourself, since you apparently know so much about the legal system and how Judges are independent in their thoughts and actions, so do not have to have or follow a ‘policy’ on sentencing and lengths, aside from what is stated in law and what other cases across the country (that are used in sentencing decisions).
2 a half year for a repeat sexual offender is in line with the sentencing someone in the south would get. The crown in nunavut doesn’t like putting inuit in southern jails because they are away from other inuit. Too bad. Inuit women have suffered long enough. 2.5 years is nothing compared to the lifetime of trauma his victims have to deal with
The worst thing to happen to us as far as sentencing goes was the incorporation of Gladue principles.
Get rid of the Gladue Principle already.
Poor excuse for criminals to use.
“Can’t do the time? Don’t do the crime.”
D-OH!!! Eliminate the…”Oh WOE is me!! I done heard of residential school. It’s their fault.”🥱
That’s not exactly true. Justice Bychok imposed the sentence the Crown was asking for, which I think was the maximum. What Justice Bychok said was the Crown should’ve gone by indictment rather than by summary. Justice Bychok said he would’ve imposed a longer sentence if one were available and it’s possible the Crown would’ve asked for one too.
I’m sorry my friend but you’re wrong. Read the decision. The Crown asked for 18 months for the sexual assault and 30 to 90 days consecutive for the criminal harassment. It’s somewhat obvious as to what was going on: The crown felt that a global sentence of less than two years was correct. But, Justice Bychok once again feels that the penitentiary is the solution and sentenced the offender to 18 months for the sexual assault and 12 months consecutive for the criminal harassment, which makes 2.5 years in a southern penitentiary. That’s 2.5 years served in the south and far away from family and culture. Maybe all of these long sentences from Justice Bychok are the right thing for Inuit and they will honour him for it on his retirement whenever that may be. But, I say that we need to talk about this in Nunavut.
Adjuk should ‘ve been sent to a real prison. Not the resorts up north.
We need more judges like Bychok. These repeat offenders need to learn that there are consequences for their actions. We have too much violence against women in Nunavut. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime!
The ‘long’ sentence that Justice Bychok imposed (18 months) was what the Crown asked for the assault; what differed is that he did not go along with the suggested time for the criminal harassment, nor did he agree that the sentences should be served consecutively. Make Iqaluit Great Again – get your own “facts” right before you make your own “humble” comments. Maybe we do need to talk about this in Nunavut, but doing it here, with the NN comments, and commenting by people who post anonymously is nothing more than a witch hunt, in my own “humble opinion”, simply because some people are armchair lawyers and judges and don’t agree with what the judge is doing and thinking and acting upon. Be like Mr. Murphy who always posts under his own name, rather than hiding behind a moniker where anyone can say anything.
The article says that the judge ordered that the two sentences be served consecutively. It’s right in the article. Read it……..
My error – I meant to type that the judge disagreed that the two sentences should be served concurrently. The article does say, yes, that the judge ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, so that is how the 2.5 years – served in a southern jail – was arrived at. What exactly is your point, Make Iqaluit Great Again? It still doesn’t address the reality that you think by making comments anonymously that we in Nunavut should listen to, and hear and believe, your comments, and that we in Nunavut should, and can, have an “open and candid discussion” – with anonymous posters.