The identity of a convicted child-sex offender in Timmins who admitted assaulting his niece is being protected following an uncharacteristic ruling made in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Timmins Wednesday.

A 69-year-old Timmins man was facing allegations of indecent assault stemming from an incident in which, the court heard, he forced himself upon a nine- or 10-year-old niece in the mid-1970s.

On Wednesday, the life-long resident of Timmins, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of common assault and was sentenced to 60 days of house arrest.

The details of the actual offense were not revealed in court though the charge of indecent assault is typically laid in connection with allegations of historic (pre-1980) sexual assaults involving children.

This same individual was convicted in 1994 of sexually assaulting a young boy and at that time was sentenced to 18 months in jail and three years of probation.

There remains an outstanding charge against the accused involving another complainant that is still before the court.

As the proceedings were set to begin Wednesday, Graham Jenner, the defence lawyer for the accused, asked the judge to impose a publication ban that would not only protect the identity of the complainant, but conceal the name of the accused as well. The basis of his request was that the accused was related to the complainant — an uncle by marriage.

Judge Cindy MacDonald turned to Assistant Crown Gerrit Verbeek and asked if this extended ban was being requested by the prosecution as well.

Verbeek replied, “Yes.”

MacDonald subsequently made the order, effectively removing a standard legal option available to media members to name any adult offender accused of child-sexual assault as long as they omit any revealing information that would identify the victim.

With the extended ban in place, Assistant Crown Attorney Verbeek told the court the offense occurred at a trailer park in Timmins’ west end in the mid-1970s where the niece would occasionally visit an aunt and uncle.

“Often times it was just” her uncle “at home. Some time during one of the summers — it was either 1976 or 1977 — she was visiting” her uncle “and he put unwanted physical force against her,” said Verbeek. “As you are aware, the original charge was indecent assault but we’re content with ‘unwanted physical force’” as a description of what occurred.

Jenner, the defence lawyer, suggested his client’s past problem with alcoholism likely influenced his behaviour at that time.

“He has been sober for decades now and he does admit to being an alcoholic – a sober alcoholic at this time. At the time of these offenses back in the mid to late ’70s, he was not sober … He was in the throes of alcoholism and that was a very big contributing factor.”

The sentence of 60 days house arrest was presented to the court as a joint recommendation by the prosecution and defence lawyers.

Verbeek noted this case was set to go to trial but the complainant had expressed to the prosecution a change of heart about proceeding.

The prosecutor said when he spoke with the victim last week, “she was very candid. She has a very limited memory of these events that happened 40 years ago. She also described herself as a strong person, that she dealt with this a long time ago, she was OK with it, she did not want to have to go to trial and be cross-examined on things she had trouble remembering.

“She came forward because one of her cousins laid similar charges against” the accused “and they had talked about these things way back when it happened. They didn’t get into detail but she knew her cousin had suffered, kind of, the same thing so she came forward with these charges and then last week, kind of, at the last minute she said, ‘You know what? I really don’t want to go ahead with this.’ So I contacted my friend (the defence lawyer Jenner) and we discussed a resolution and that’s why we’re here today.”

Given the opportunity by the judge to address the court, the accused replied he had nothing to say, “Nothing that hasn’t already been said.”

He then proceeded to tell the court he works approximately two hours a day doing contract work, as needed.

“Anything else you want to say about the offense, anything you want to say to the complainant, anything you want to say to your family? Here is your chance if you like,” Judge MacDonald said.

“I have nothing to say, your honour.”

While under house arrest, the accused will still have the opportunity to leave the home for a variety of reasons including attending work and church services.

“He is a practising Jehovah’s Witness,” explained Jenner.

The lawyer asked that his client be allowed to attend services twice a week.

Jenner also asked that the accused by permitted to attend his office for any legal appointments.

The accused “does have an outstanding matter for which I am counsel, so I would ask for an exception for appointments to attend at the counsel’s office.”