WARNING: This story discusses sexual abuse.
A former Buddhist monk convicted for sexually abusing two girls at a Winnipeg temple has had his prison sentence reduced by 18 months, after Manitoba’s highest court learned the man has lung cancer that has metastasized to his brain.
Southone Silaphet was convicted of two counts of sexual interference in late 2021 by a provincial court.
Trial Judge Stacy Cawley said in her decision that he had sexually abused two sisters over a period of years while he was the head monk of a North End temple, which the victims’ family attended.
The victims were aged two and six when the abuse began in May 2011, and it carried on for eight years, according to court records.
Cawley said Silaphet engaged in unwanted touching and other sexual acts that she described as “violent and extremely intrusive,” which violated the victims “not just physically, but also emotionally and psychologically.”
Silaphet was sentenced in October 2022 to 11 years in prison.
He appealed his conviction earlier this year, and also appealed the sentence, in part because he was diagnosed in January with lung cancer that had metastasized to his brain while incarcerated.
In a written decision released last week, Manitoba’s Court of Appeal found Silaphet’s sentence “no longer fit” in light of Silaphet’s cancer diagnosis, but upheld his conviction.
Conviction upheld
Silaphet appealed his conviction for the two counts of sexual interference, arguing the trial judge made a mistake by misapprehending evidence presented by the victims and “unevenly scrutinizing his testimony with that of the victims,” according to the appeal decision.
That appeal was dismissed, with the court ruling the trial judge didn’t commit any “reversible errors” in convicting him.
He had argued the trial judge erred by rejecting evidence from the younger victim prior to 2016.
Cawley wrote that while she believed the victim, she was “not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the reliability of her assertion that [the accused] touched her” prior to 2016, but said she did not have concerns about the reliability of later allegations.
Silaphet’s appeal argued that decision was made without “expert evidence” to support the victim’s memory capability.
However, the appeal court ruled “the trial judge was entitled to make the reliability findings she did,” and “did not require expert evidence to make her assessments of the evidence.”
Silaphet also argued the trial judge failed to adequately consider inconsistencies between the victims’ testimony, but the appeal court said the inconsistencies had already been raised and addressed at the trial.
“[Silaphet] is asking this court to reweigh and reinterpret the evidence, which is not its role,” Justice Karen I. Simonsen, writing for the three appeal judges, said in the decision.
Likewise, the appeal court rejected his argument of “uneven scrutiny,” in which he claimed the trial judge “improperly used part of the statement of agreed facts.”
The appeal decision said Silaphet was asking the court to reweigh evidence and “substitute an alternative interpretation consistent with his version,” and said the trial judge gave “extensive explanations for why she rejected the accused’s testimony and accepted the evidence of the victims.”
Cancer diagnosis
In his appeal of his sentence, Silaphet introduced his cancer diagnosis as fresh evidence, saying it constitutes “clear evidence” of a health condition that might lead to his period of incarceration exceeding his life span, the written decision said.
The Crown argued Silaphet’s diagnosis showed he remains “pretty stable” despite having a “slightly enlarged brain lesion,” adding he didn’t show any side-effects to his treatment.
Regarding the medical record, the appeal court said Silaphet’s diagnosis does not speak to his prognosis or life expectancy.
“Despite the limitations of the fresh evidence, I can infer that, with the accused’s serious diagnosis of metastatic cancer, he will suffer medical hardship while in custody,” the written decision says.
The Court of Appeal determined he was sentenced “on the basis that he had no health issues. He now clearly does,” and therefore, “the original sentences imposed are no longer fit.”
The court reduced Silaphet’s sentence from 11 to nine and a half years.
Silaphet had also appealed that his original sentence on the basis 11 years was “demonstrably unfit,” arguing the trial judge did not account for the fact that the sexual offences involved touching as opposed to penetrative acts.
The appeal court rejected that argument.
The 11-year sentence “is undoubtedly very high but … I am not convinced that it reaches the level of being demonstrably unfit,” Simonsen wrote for the court.
Support is available for anyone who has been sexually assaulted. You can access crisis lines and local support services through this Government of Canada website or the Ending Violence Association of Canada database. If you’re in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911.