The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has delivered a ruling in the case of Jermaine Neverson, a man who pleaded guilty to more than 20 criminal charges involving the systematic exploitation and abuse of ten vulnerable women1. While Justice Conlan found that Neverson’s constitutional rights were severely violated during a tactical intervention at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex, the court ultimately declined to stay the proceedings. Instead, the judge applied a substantial sentence reduction that resulted in Neverson being released on a sentence of time served. The decision balances the high moral blameworthiness of Neverson’s long-term criminal conduct against the state’s obligation to treat even convicted offenders in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The history of the case dates back to September 25, 2023, when Neverson entered guilty pleas to 22 different criminal offences. The counts spanned an eight year period between 2013 and 2021, during which Neverson targeted ten women. At the time he resolved his charges, Neverson was 36 years old. The convictions recorded against him included nine counts of human trafficking, six counts of sexual assault, and various charges related to aggravated assault, choking, unlawful confinement, and the unlawful killing of an animal. An agreed statement of facts submitted to the court detailed a landscape of extreme manipulation and violence.
All ten of the victims were described as highly vulnerable due to factors such as youth, poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, and histories of trauma. Neverson utilized these vulnerabilities to intimidate and control the women, trafficking them in the sex trade and keeping the proceeds of their work. The court record described his treatment of the women as akin to slavery. The physical toll on the victims was documented through medical records and witness accounts. One woman weighed only 88 pounds and required hospitalization by the time she ceased working for Neverson. Another victim was dragged from her bed and repeatedly kicked as punishment for attempting to leave.
Specific incidents of violence were particularly severe. In one instance, Neverson strangled a woman until she lost consciousness before sexually assaulting her. In another, he became enraged when a dog belonging to one of the women had an accident on the floor. Neverson beat the animal to death and then forced the woman to drive to a rural area to bury her pet. Other acts included burning a victim’s skin with a cigarette lighter and inflicting a head injury that required ten staples to close. The agreed statement of facts spanned fifteen pages, painting a picture of a man who stripped his victims of their dignity and left them with permanent physical and psychological scars.
Following his guilty pleas, Neverson’s sentencing was delayed to allow for the preparation of an enhanced pre-sentence report, commonly known as a Morris report. During this period of wait, while Neverson was being held at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex, an incident occurred in late December 2023 involving the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT). This tactical unit was deployed within the facility in a manner that had previously been scrutinized by the court in other cases. Neverson subsequently filed an application under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that the state’s treatment of him during this deployment constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
During the hearing for the Charter application, both the Crown and the defense acknowledged that the facts regarding Neverson’s treatment at Maplehurst were not materially different from those found in previous judicial reviews of the same ICIT deployment. Consequently, it was conceded that Neverson’s rights under sections 7, 8, and 12 of the Charter had been violated. Section 7 protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, while Section 8 protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and Section 12 prohibits cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The core of the legal argument focused not on whether a violation had occurred, but on what the appropriate remedy should be.
The defense argued for a stay of proceedings, which would effectively terminate the prosecution and prevent any further sentencing. This is considered the most drastic remedy available under the Charter. The Crown, however, argued that a stay was inappropriate given the gravity of Neverson’s crimes. Instead, the Crown suggested a substantial reduction in the sentence he would otherwise receive. To determine if a stay was warranted, the court applied a three part test used for cases involving an abuse of process. This test asks whether the prejudice caused by the abuse would be manifested or aggravated by continuing the proceedings, whether there is any other remedy capable of removing that prejudice, and where the balance of interests lies regarding the integrity of the justice system.
Justice Conlan decided to dismiss the application for a stay of proceedings, finding that a significant sentence reduction was an adequate alternative remedy. The judge noted several key differences between Neverson’s situation and previous cases where stays had been considered. Notably, Neverson was not facing a mandatory minimum sentence, which meant the court had the flexibility to reduce his prison term significantly. Furthermore, unlike individuals awaiting trial who are presumed innocent, Neverson’s moral blameworthiness was already established through his guilty pleas. The court emphasized that the degree of responsibility for his crimes was extremely high, involving chronic abuse and exploitative sexual violence.
In the final sentencing phase, the court calculated a fit sentence by first establishing a starting point. Based on the human trafficking and assault charges, the judge determined that a global sentence of approximately 13.5 years would have been appropriate under normal circumstances. This figure took into account the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the vulnerability of the victims. However, the court then applied mitigating factors, including the overly harsh conditions Neverson faced during his pre-sentence custody, such as triple bunking and frequent lockdowns, which were exacerbated by the aftermath of the COVID 19 pandemic.
The most significant reduction came from the Charter violations during the December 2023 jail incident. Neverson provided unchallenged evidence that he was zip tied, had his head banged into a metal cell door, and was forced to sit in a hallway in his underwear while being threatened by officers. He described being subjected to freezing temperatures from industrial fans, having his religious materials and personal belongings destroyed, and being denied food, medication, and the ability to shower or use the telephone for several days. Justice Conlan described this treatment as corporal punishment and treatment akin to torture.
The court determined that the appropriate remedy for these violations was a sentence reduction of at least four to five years. When this reduction was applied to the fit sentence, the remaining time was less than the credit Neverson had already earned for the days he spent in jail awaiting his court dates. Neverson had served 1,680 real days in custody, which, when calculated at the standard enhanced rate of 1.5 days for every one day served, totaled 2,520 days or approximately 6.9 years. Because the final net sentence was lower than the time already served, the court sentenced Neverson to time served on all 22 counts.
Despite his immediate release from custody, Neverson remains subject to several long term orders. The court imposed a life time ban on the possession of firearms and weapons, a primary DNA order requiring him to provide a sample to the national database, and a requirement that he register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Additionally, the judge exercised the court’s inherent power to impose a five year common law peace bond. This bond includes strict conditions prohibiting Neverson from having any direct or indirect contact with the ten victims and barring him from coming within 100 meters of their homes, workplaces, or schools. The court concluded the proceedings by noting that while the state’s misconduct was grave, the legal system’s integrity was best preserved by acknowledging the harm done to the victims through the registration of the convictions while simultaneously holding the state accountable for its constitutional failures.
Read more crime stories here.
