After obtaining parole as a punishment for a sexual assault and thereby avoiding a criminal record, Simon Houle risks losing those benefits: the Director of Law Enforcement and Prosecutions (DPCP) has just accused him of violating his parole rules .
The information from Tuesday shows that the 31-year-old has not complied with the conditions incumbent on him, namely those of administrative offenses and good conduct.
That order was part of the verdict that Judge Matthieu Poliquin handed down on June 21 after the man pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault and voyeurism committed in 2019. The judge had granted conditional release with three years imprisonment. trial period.
According to the information, the conditions of probation were violated.
The actions alleged against Simon Houle allegedly occurred on July 4 – just two weeks after Judge Poliquin announced his decision – while he was on vacation in Cuba.
A Quebecer accuses him of grabbing her buttocks during that stay and reporting to the police when she returned to the country.
If found guilty of violating his terms, he could lose the benefit of the dismissal he received – and which had sparked a wave of outrage in Quebec. Simon Houle could then have a criminal record for both the 2019 sexual assault and a rule-breaking act.
It should be noted that the DPCP has not filed any sexual assault charges in connection with the events of July 4, 2022.
In addition, the DPCP is seeking to appeal Judge Poliquin’s decision. He must present his arguments before the Court of Appeal on December 9th.
Complaints against Judge Poliquin
The Conseil de la magistrature du Québec dismissed all complaints against Judge Matthieu Poliquin. His verdict last July gave him a conditional release, meaning Simon Houle would not have a criminal record: the judge considered, among other things, that it would have had a “negative and disproportionate” impact on his career as an engineer. These words shocked many people. As a result, several complaints were filed against the judge of the Quebec Court. In its decision transmitted on Wednesday, the Council rules: no one accuses Matthieu Poliquin of committing an ethical breach during the hearing of the verdict, which would have been the case if he had been aggressive towards a witness or brought himself into conflict by interest situation. Rather, the complaints denounce the content of the judgment, arguing that the judge “would have erred in his assessment of the facts and in his analysis of the law and the factors or criteria used to determine the appropriate sentence”. . However, the Council is not a court of appeal and cannot revise judgments, he reminds in his decision. So he dismisses the complaints. “Unfounded,” it is written.