“She had wanton disregard for harm being done to others and focused on herself for financial gain”
Justice Richards
(CMR) Judith Douglas was sentenced to over 6 years imprisonment for her latest offenses relating to a rental scam. Justice Richards indicated that the experts opined that she is at high risk of reoffending, and she suffers from anti-social personality disorder.
The judge showed little mercy when considering the totality of her offenses over the years, amounting some 42 victims and almost $2M. The judge noted that she must receive treatment for her numerous issues while incarcerated.
Douglas, who was charged with 36 counts of obtaining property by deception in relation to a rent scam, pleaded guilty to 32 counts last August. She relied on the fact that she now admits to being a gambling addict. However, the judge noted that she only came to this realization two months before the latest offenses.
She admitted to being abused as a young girl by family members and also being introduced at an early age to gambling. The court also heard that since her most recent stay in custody, she had enrolled in online courses and obtained good grades.
Despite this, the judge felt that this was a high culpability case with significant harm to the victims and the community. Justice Richards noted:
“She needs to be protected from herself and the community needs to be protected from her”
Indicating that usually, the starting point would be five years, and considering previous offenses, that increased it to nine years. The judge also considered that she was on license for her previous convictions. However, given the “multiplicity of victims,” the starting point in this case would be six years. 18 months would be added for each count.
Reading from the Social Inquiry Report (SIR), she noted that one victim was forced to sleep in his car, and many others lost opportunities for housing. The judge noted that she selected the most vulnerable victims to scam.
Douglas was arrested in March after CMR brought attention to her numerous schemes, where she took deposits from persons interested in renting property located at 55 Diaz Lane without actually following through.
For the matter of compensation, the court noted that there was no evidence that she had any means to pay such an order, but the prosecution intended to proceed. They wanted records of her online shopping, but it was to be deferred pending their application under that respective act.
The defendant was crying in court, and when she stood to face the judge, she said that she had already served so much time in custody. The judge explained that time was to be deducted.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid