Warning: This article contains graphic content. Discretion is advised.
Former Saint John councillor Donnie Snook has been denied day parole by the Parole Board of Canada, which deemed him an “undue risk to society” if released.
In 2013, Snook was sentenced to 18 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to 46 charges, including sexual assault and possessing, distributing and making child pornography over a span of 12 years.
The crimes involved 17 children between the ages of five and 15.
“The abuse involved children who came in contact with you at your home through a program you were involved in through your community, where you held a position of trust,” reads the decision by the Parole Board of Canada (PBC), dated July 14.
Snook would provide his victims with trips, money, alcohol and drugs in return for sexual favours.
The former councillor also admitted to three other incidents involving a child in Snook’s home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
‘A profound and long lasting impact on your victims’
In its decision, the PBC considered a number of victim impact statements that were submitted to the court during Snook’s sentencing.
The documents describe how the victims and their families report a feeling of pain, betrayal, shame, embarrassment, problems with intimacy and disruptions to “all aspects of their lives.”
The lives of his victims were disrupted and they suffered through addiction as well as the need for intensive treatment and therapy.
One victim described how he felt “robbed of his childhood and having ongoing nightmares.”
The PBC concludes that Snook’s actions had “a profound and long lasting impact on (his) victims, their family and community in a very personal way including breaking their sense of trust and in some cases, their faith and ability to turn to religion for comfort and healing.”
Although Snook told the parole board that he used to get “defensive” when he read the victim statements, he has “come to accept the truth.”
“You reported that you are now able to face the truth about the consequences of your actions and recognize that you no longer have to act on your thoughts,” the ruling reads.
When the board asked about Snook’s ability to deceive and history of creating an “image of a good person” while he was offending, Snook told the PBC that he has acknowledged that part of his life, and that he needs to “guard against being manipulative.”
Snook permitted to attend church in the community
Snook, who is incarcerated in a minimum-security prison in the Pacific region, according to the decision, has participated in “sexual deviance” counselling and has obtained several vocational certifications and worked during his time in prison.
The former councillor has been granted a number of escorted temporary absences to attend church in the local community, the decision reads.
If day parole had been granted, Snook would have been accepted to a community residential facility in the Fraser Valley in British Columbia. His case management team had recommended parole.
“You have completed core programming with notable gains, maintained a positive working relationship with your (case management team) and have successfully cascaded to minimum security,” the decision reads.
A number of people submitted letters of support for Snook’s parole hearing, including the chaplain at the prison, a friend from his hometown, the pastor for Snook’s family, several volunteers at the prison and an unnamed individual who expressed a willingness to move to the location Snook is released to and support him “financially, personally and emotionally.”
The institutional parole officer told the parole board at the hearing that she did not believe Snook could make more progress in prison.
“She reported you are respectful, have no conduct concerns, have made exceptional gains from programming, participated in vocational training to assist with future employment, engaged in individual counselling and successfully completed 30 (escorted temporary absences) to church with no concerns.”
‘Total disregard for what was right’
During the hearing, Snook told the parole board he had been aware of his sexual attraction to boys since adolescence.
He said he wasn’t aware of the thinking that allowed him to “open the door” to his offences.
“Although you knew it was wrong on some level, you minimized the negative impact of your actions in order to give yourself permission to continue,” the decision reads.
“You admitted masking your motives for involvement in advocacy for underprivileged youth in order to access young boys.”
Snook also admitted to using financial rewards to prevent his victims from reporting his offences because he knew they were financially disadvantaged and could not access the opportunities Snook offered without him.
“You stated that you feared rejection, used your offending to manage stress and recognize that you acted with a total disregard for what was right in order to get your sexual needs met,” the PBC decision reads.
Snook told the board he is now able to face the truth about the consequences of his actions and that when he notices inappropriate thoughts, shuts them down and adjusts his thinking.
He said he believed that his next step is parole and that with a strong self-management plan, he should be released.
“You stated that you anticipate that there will be a strong community reaction and you recognize the importance of hearing and respecting their voices,” the decision reads.
‘More work to do’
But the board determined that Snook had “more work to do” in order to address his risk factors.
“Your deviant sexual interest in boys, a primary factor in your offending, is untested in the institutional setting and your progress is based on theory and self-reports,” the decision reads.
The board found that Snook “engaged in a high level of impression management” during his hearing.
Snook did not answer a number of questions related to managing his risk and instead, “focused on elaborating on the positive aspects of (his) case.”
The PBC also voiced concern over Snook’s ability to be deceptive. Psychological assessment that indicated Snook was at a moderate risk to reoffend also contributed to its decision.
Comments