Man who stalked North Van woman for 20 years loses appeal

A man found guilty of stalking a North Vancouver woman has failed in his appeal to have his conviction and sentence tossed out.

Laurence Earl Brewin was convicted of criminal harassment in April 2016 and received a suspended sentence and two years of probation. Brewin represented himself at trial. It wasn’t until it came time for his sentencing that he requested the help of court-appointed lawyer.

Brewin’s history with the victim stretched back 20 years from the time she was 12 or 13 years old and he would attempt to walk her home from school with his pet ferret or wait for her at the end of her driveway, according to the Court of Appeal ruling.

On Christmas Eve 2013, Brewin went to her workplace and proposed to her, offering his grandmother’s ring. He spent 20 minutes talking to her, saying he knew where she lived, as well as the names of her boyfriends and family members.

Following the incident, police warned Brewin he could be charged if he had any further contact with her but in June 2014, he faxed a seven-page letter to the victim and her father. Among other things, he threatened to kill himself if she or her fiancé told anyone he was stalking her, he referred to passing out with a gun that had gone off, wanting to do something to make their “forbidden love” work, attending anger management and describing the places where he’d seen the victim

“She was extremely fearful for her own safety so much so that she started taking different routes home from work. It was directly related to his conduct and his communications,” Justice Paul Pearlman wrote in his ruling for the court of appeal. “Was her fear reasonable in all the circumstances? Without a doubt this is so. Mr. Brewin has a long-standing fixation or obsession with (the victim). He followed her on social media. His interest in her was public. It had spanned 20 years. He was at her workplace proposing marriage. There were clear references to violence, guns, suicide and forbidden love in his letters. Any reasonable person would have had such a fear in the circumstances.”

But Brewin appealed, arguing the judge at his trial “failed to provide him with adequate assistance as an unrepresented accused,” to “ensure that his defence was brought out with full force and effect.”

Specifically, Brewin complained that no one told him he could challenge whether the victim’s fear was reasonable or whether his behaviour amounted to “repeated communication” under the law.

During the trial, the judge asked several times if Brewin understood his explanations, which Brewin said he did. And the judge told Brewin he could ask questions during the trial and the court would deal with them. Brewin testified at length without interruption “other than to prevent needless repetition,” the ruling noted.

“The failure of the trial judge to explain the elements of the offence, or to identify potential defences, which had no prospect of success did not compromise the appellant’s ability to properly bring out his defence,” Pearlman wrote.

Brewin also argued the trial judge erred by not considering a conditional discharge as punishment, which would have kept the charge off his criminal record following probation. A conditional discharge would not have been appropriate, Pearlman found, as Brewin had shown no insight into his behaviour and had not accepted responsibility for his offence.

“Entry of a conviction, combined with the terms of probation imposed by the trial judge was required to impress upon the appellant the serious nature of his behaviour, the risk of harm to the complainant and his ongoing need for mental health assessment and follow-up,” he wrote.