Pingoatuk Kolola, shown in a sketch from his 2010 murder trial, can apply for early parole after winning a “faint hope” clause application in court in Kimmirut Wednesday. A jury decided Kolola, who has been behind bars since shooting RCMP Const. Douglas Scott, can ask the Parole Board of Canada for early release several years sooner than his sentence for first-degree murder allowed. (File photo)
Kolola wins ability to seek early parole using ‘faint hope’ clause
Kimmirut jury gives killer of RCMP officer chance to seek parole hearing several years earlier than his sentence allowed
A jury in Kimmirut has granted convicted murderer Pingoatuk Kolola’s “faint hope” application for parole eligibility, several years earlier than his original sentence of 25 years without the possibility of parole.
Kolola, who was convicted in the shooting death of RCMP Const. Douglas Scott in 2007, was in court in Kimmirut this week after spending the past 17 years behind bars.
In a hearing before a jury, he was seeking the ability to apply to the Parole Board of Canada for a reduction in his parole eligibility. In 2010, he was sentenced to life in prison with no chance at parole for 25 years.
But Kolola asked the court to use the now-repealed “faint hope” clause of the Criminal Code to allow him to apply for parole sooner. That section of the Criminal Code was abolished in 2011, but remains available to people who were sentenced while the clause was still in place.
On Wednesday morning, Crown and defence lawyers took about an hour and a half to make their final submissions in a community hall room being used for the hearing.
Then the jury was sent off to deliberate, and it returned 45 minutes later with its decision.
On Tuesday, defence lawyer Lauren Shadley pinned her arguments for a reduction in Kolola’s parole eligibility on the progress he had made in his rehabilitation while in prison.
But in her closing arguments Wednesday, Crown lawyer Trisha McCarthy turned that argument on its head. She claimed that granting Kolola the ability to seek early parole would harm the progress he has only been able to make because of the services provided to him in prison.
She argued that early parole would interrupt or deny his ability to be fully rehabilitated.
“The road to healing is long and it is not always a straight and narrow path. Not for Mr. Kolola and not for his community. And I suggest to you, that is why 25 years is appropriate,” McCarthy said, addressing the jury.
“He needs that time. You and your community need that time. The family of Const. Scott needs that time,” she added.
Shadley argued that the hearing was about what to do with Kolola, her client.
“Putting this man in a cell and throwing away the key will not bring Const. Scott back. What happened to Const. Scott is tragic and should not have happened. His family will grieve their entire lives,” the defence lawyer said.
“The Crown ended their submission by asking you to give them more time to heal. You can’t. There is no amount of time that will end their grieving; that is not your decision today. The reason we are here today: what do we do with this man?” Shadley told the jury.
The jury’s ruling Wednesday creates a potential reprieve for an inmate serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years. It allows him to apply to the Parole Board of Canada to be released from prison before the end of that full sentence.
The “faint hope” clause allowed criminals sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for more than 25 years to seek early release from prison after serving 15 years of their sentence.
The federal government repealed the clause in 2011. But Kolola was convicted in 2010, making him eligible under the old law.
I must accept the jury’s decision, but it is WRONG< WRONG< WRONG. Unfortunately, his original sentence was by the law. But the law is wrong when it comes to the murder of a police officer. This crime screams for the death penalty and if we cannot agree to that, then to life in prison until death. No parole.
Death penalty? No way! You know how often the courts have been wrong, how prosecutors like George Dangerfield helped send wrong innocent men to jail? (Especially Natives!) Sadly, you are under the same nievety I was thinking there in no corruption in the legal system. Never death penalty for anyone!!
You seem to have access to the answers Monica. What is your source of the facts?
How many death penalties were performed on wrongly convicted prisoners?
I have just spent an hour researching and have not found the source you are using.
Or are you using emotional data only?
ANY one who murders another person should be put to death. Period.
ANY one who rapes another person should be put away for life, no parole.
Any one who sexually assaults a child should be put away for life with no parole.
ANY one who is a repeat offender should never be allowed bail if they are accused of another crime.
Shall I go on? Look around you at the criminals here in Nunavut who have been repeat offenders and committed murder.
Terrible decision. Once again in this country the criminals rights come before the victims and their families
Just so everyone is clear, this does NOT mean Kolola will get parole, only that he can apply for it. The National Parole Board still has to approve an parole application by Kolola and they could reject it.
This decision was by Kololas peers in Kimmirut. He was welcomed home with open arms. There were hugs from a long line of people who knew him before the incident ever happened. Elders waited for him to offer him hugs. His remaining family members minus 5 who had passed away (mother and siblings)while he was being incarcerated finally had a chance at reuniting after all those years. Inuit have been through so much and he is someone who was betrayed by authorities. Intoxication was a major part of the incident as with many other cases in Nunavut communities. Constable Scott will never be forgotten. Ever. But we do have to see that there has been a huge progress in this man. To recognize that he is not a hardened criminal even though he has been in the pen for so long is something to consider. He applied. The jury spoke. Now it is up to the Parole Board to grant him or not. When elders in the community line up to welcome their own, it says a lot about our way of being as Inuit. Our culture is strong. We continue to practice IQ. IQ was used in this. Consensus was reached.
Had he not killed a police officer who was an outsider of the community, but killed a member of the community, would people feel the same?
I was there when that happened
Leave him there
Well I hope if and when he is granted parole he is placed in Kimmirut for all the people that welcomed him and not dropped in Iqaluit like everyone else!
My father-in-law (an Inuinnaq) was a wise man. He once said “just because you are an elder, it doesn’t mean you are smart”. It appears Kimmirut has a number of these. How could we expect a jury, made up of local people, to make a fair decision, because had they denied the request, they would have to still face up to the local population.
It is a regrettable truth that instances of murder in Nunavut often involve the influence of alcohol. Individuals released from incarceration, regardless of the duration served, frequently revert to substance abuse. This is exemplified by a case in which an individual, after a 14 to 15-year imprisonment, relapsed and returned to rehabilitation for sobriety.
Breaking the cycle of this behavior necessitates a genuine desire for change. Constable Scott’s family’s tragedy should have been preventable.
Individuals must exercise sound judgment in their daily lives. The unlawful taking of a life cannot be rationalized simply because one’s expectations are unmet. This is an affront to justice. Furthermore, the jury selection process should have extended beyond the confines of the Baffin Region, the location of the defendant’s origin.
Everyone else who has applied for parole under this process since it was introduced in 1976 has had the right to a jury of their peers in the community where the offence took place. Why should the law be applied any differently to this offender?
Anywhere else but in the small communities of Nunavut, he would not have relatives, friends, or neighbours on the jury of his peers. Peers anywhere else would be in relative anonymity from potential backlash.
Where is Tulugaq to tell us how traditional justice might have looked in this situation?
What this man did was horrible. Not only did he cause the family of Douglas Scott’s young life that his parents could not get a grandchild from or anything in life after his tragic death 💔 people do not get to see the tragic of the whole event before and after. Not only did he make a family loose a son, a stolen soldier!! But he also did a traumatic event for his children and siblings that no one will ever forget. But no one ever can take back anything from that night! I’m sure his children feel remorse or something!! I’m sure the children were bullied for it from their peers!! ( not their fault at all) I’m sure his children and family and siblings and everyone feels remorse and guilty for his doings!! Again! Not their fault!!! But me as an inuk! With these possibilities and outcomes of what a tragic event of life for everyone and the law! He should have a chance 💔 not much life left in him anyways! But me as an adult inuk! Our way of life in the olden age before we were colonized, someone did something horrible it would be up to the community to decide what to do with the person! What help they need to get to get back into society! The jury hearing was all community based! Weather they forgave him or not. He must feel the guilt and everything he worked through throughout his life in prison! Inuit were forced and abused through the colonization! He was one of the abused from authority and as a young child watching that! Seeing all his older brothers and sisters and parents going through what they went through! I would grow up not trusting the authorities to this day!!! Even to today they treat inuit in different ways. So much more I want to say in both ways.
The mainstream legal system uses punishment as a tool to deter people to commit crimes and reduce the risks of re-offending. Once a person is convicted and sent to jail, there is a significant chance that the person will be back in the community some time in the future and that goes as well for first degree murder after serving 25 years. Most developed countries have this type of sentencing except for the US that still carries the death penalty.
Indigenous justice is not based on punishment but on healing and restoration of the parties relationships and, in extreme circumstances it includes banishment and historically death (like the mainstream society) when healing and restoration was not possible. While efforts are made in federal penitentiaries to include Indigenous healing this is quite difficult if and when the person is far from his or her community and the healing does not include the victim’s family in the case of the victim’s death.
Now, the Canadian society is mutating and the faint hope disposition of the Criminal Code was removed by the Harper government as part of its law and order platform. Yet, evidence is very abundant that jail sentences are no deterrent and often make risks of re-offending even higher while hope of early release will generally help in reintroducing an offender in the community. The Parole Board is the best forum in our legal system to decide whether an offender could be released at the lowest risk for the community and there is no guarantee whatsoever that this man will be released early. His sentence is still life either in prison or under supervision.