Appeal court upholds conviction in stag and doe assault

Jordan Rocchetta is headed to jail after the province's highest court dismissed his appeal of his aggravated assault conviction for a 2011 attack that caused a serious eye injury to another man.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal did allow his appeal of the 21-month sentence he received nearly two years ago and reduced it to nine months incarceration, followed by three years probation.

The court also upheld his older brother Ryan's conviction for simple assault in the attack on Jake Doan at a stag and doe at a camp east of Sault Ste. Marie.

Jordan struck Doan in the face, a single blow that damaged the man's right eye at a July 24, 2011 party at McCarroll's Lake.

Ryan kicked and punched Doan after he fell to the ground from Jordan's blow.

When Superior Court Justice Edward Gareau sentenced Jordan on Oct.31, 2014, his lawyer Bruce Willson immediately filed an appeal and he was released on bail pending the appeal.

The appeals were heard in Toronto on June 23 and the court released its decision on Wednesday.

Ryan, who had received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for three years, abandoned his appeal of that sentence at the higher court.

Jordan challenged Gareau's rejection of his self-defence claim and the trial judge's finding that the blow struck by Jordan caused Doan's serious eye injury.

In its decision, the appeal court said Gareau's finding that the injury resulted from Jordan's blow "is the only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence."

It also indicated that it wasn't persuaded by arguments that Gareau erred in his consideration of Jordan's self-defence claim.

As for the sentence that Gareau imposed on Jordan, the court said it agreed with most of what the judge mentioned in his reasons.

It noted Jordan was a young first offender (23 at the time of the assault) and is a valuable member of the community who operates a successful business with his brother, is in a committed long-term relationship, and has no history of anger control problems or substance abuse.

As well, Jordan "is truly sorry" for the serious injury he caused Doan.

"In short, all signs indicate that this offence is an aberration," the court said, concluding Jordan presents no danger to the community and no risk for re-offending.

In the court's view, "Jordan's moral culpability can't be distinguished from Ryan's" since both violently attacked Doan with force that could reasonably be expected to result in significant injury.

"Luckily for Ryan, his assault did not cause significant injury. Unfortunately for Jordan, his assault caused a very serious life-altering injury."

The appeal court said Gareau correctly concluded that Ryan, also a young first time offender, should receive a suspended sentence.

As well, Gareau had also correctly concluded that the very serious injury Jordan caused put denunciation and deterrence at the forefront in his sentencing.

"We agree with the trial judge that despite many mitigating factors a significant period of incarceration was required for Jordan because of the serious injury."

However, the three-member panel said Gareau failed to take into account the restraint principle that is applied to young first offenders facing incarceration.

The principle directs that a first period of incarceration imposed on such an offender should be as short as possible while giving adequate weight to the principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

Gareau failed to apply the principle, which should have been one of the primary considerations in determining the appropriate sentence, the court said.

As a result, it decided to reduce the custodial sentence.

"Nine months is a signficant jail term for this offender" and doesn't understate the need to deter others from engaging in this kind of conduct" and adequately denounce Jordan's behaviour, it ruled.