Blaming the victim: What not to do at a sentencing hearing when a judge asks an offender if they want to speak
A wonderful scolding of a violent man by Judge Peter Whyte, and an explainer on how not to put your foot in your mouth in a courtroom
If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all.
Good advice to keep peace in your life, be a positive happy person, but it's also something to keep in mind if you are front of a judge who asks if you want to say anything.
Himanshu Sachdeva beat up his girlfriend violently on more than one occasion. I was sitting in courtroom 204 at the Chilliwack Law Courts on March 3, 2025, awaiting a possible appearance of another accused, head down doing my own thing.
Sachdeva was in front of Judge Peter Whyte alongside his lawyer and Crown counsel Amy Carter, the latter two of whom were presenting a joint submission after a guilty plea on a K-file, domestic assault. Not particularly newsworthy (sadly, I suppose) so I wasn't even actively listening.
But something Judge Whyte said brought me to attention. My head popped up. He was so unimpressed by this offender's lack of self-awareness that Whyte gave him a dressing down. This guy deserved it so badly it made me want to buy Judge Whyte a beer.
You see, the 29-year-old Sachdeva was in court on Monday because he repeatedly beat up his girlfriend, a First Nations woman suffering with a mental illness. One of the two files he was in court for involved four counts on three dates, starting with assault causing bodily harm from Sept. 23, 2023. Then he was charged with assault by choking on Dec. 1, 2023, and on Jan. 16, 2024, unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm.
While out of custody on bail for those charges, which included a no-contact order, Sachdeva's vulnerable victim said she wanted to see him. He went to see her on Feb. 28, 2024, and allegedly assaulted her again leading to another assault charge, and a breach.
But in a situation all too familiar for police officers investigating crimes and for Crown counsel dealing with cases involving victims, the victim was not co-operative and refused to testify against Sachdeva.
With no possible case to bring to trial, Crown counsel cut losses. Sachdeva was willing to plead guilty to one charge with a joint submission for a conditional discharge, which means no criminal record, and 12 months probation. For the public interest, it's better than nothing.
After having the case outlined to him by Carter along with the joint submission agreed to by both lawyers, Judge Whyte asked Sachdeva if he wanted to say anything about the case, advising him – and this is very important – that he was not obliged to do so.
Rewording the advice from my opening line, if you don't have anything to say that makes you look good, keep your mouth shut or at least ask your lawyer if you should say what you are going to say.
The court heard that Sachdeva immigrated to Canada from India a decade ago as an 18-year-old and the rest of his family was still in India. He's had a hard time over those years. But he also told Judge Whyte that the reason he beat up his girlfriend repeatedly is that she suffers from schizophrenia. Like many people with this condition, she goes to the hospital every couple of months for an anti-psychotic injection, which helps treat the symptoms of the serious mental health illness.
Sachdeva explained his repeated violence, for which he was criminally charged four times in five months, as stemming from the fact that his girlfriend missed her injection. Not smart.
Judge Whyte then calmly started to issue his sentence with all the usual legal caveats that go along with a joint submission. As soon as he started speaking, however, I started listening.
"This is a manifestly unfit sentence," Judge Whyte said of the joint submission to avoid jail time or a criminal record.
He expressed shock that this man admitted to assaulting an Indigenous woman with a serious mental health condition while – and maybe because – she was unmedicated when he wasn't even allowed to be anywhere near her.
"Crown candidly admitted they have no case because the witness is non-co-operative," he said, adding that was "very" mitigating. "It is troubling that when asked if he wanted to address the court, informed he need not, he then in effect blamed the offences on his companion because she is schizophrenic not taking an intramuscular shot."
Sachdeva basically told the court "the offences were somehow brought on by her and not by him."
Judge Whyte also pointed out that it had to be a lie that Sachdeva didn't know about her possible bouts of psychosis after the first few violent assaults.
"That might work early on, but doesn’t work when he found out and certainly doesn’t work when a person is on a non-contact order with a person who is mentally ill."
In agreeing to a joint submission, a judge has to weigh two elements: is it in the best interest of the accused; and is it in the public interest."
"This is certainly in his best interests," Judge Whyte said, scolding the unapologetic accused with a subtle jab of sarcasm.
"With no small amount of reservation I will endorse it, particularly because without it, there is no case. I feel compelled to accept it even though I find it to be demonstrably unfit."
Judge Whyte then made it abundantly clear, so clear that if he didn't understand it he's got a problem, that Sachdeva won't be getting off this lightly ever again if he's in his courtroom.
"You’ve got some insight to gain quite frankly," Whyte said, calling the case disturbing. "You blamed all this on Miss P’s anger, her mental health. You were aware she had a mental illness.
"There will not be a repeat of this absent a criminal record if you engage in domestic violence again. I don’t care if Miss P wants contact with you. You were the one bound by the no-contact order."
"This person is out of your life. No gestures, no nods, no asking other people how she is. No social media, phones, texts, emails."
With every sentence in criminal court comes a victim crime surcharge, usually around $100. In many cases this is simply ordered. Many offenders are quite poor, so it is waived.
Sachdeva's lawyer indeed asked for the $100 victim crime surcharge to be waived because he is self-employed, doing what was not clear. Not only did Judge Whyte decline to waive it, he gave a quick explanation what it is for, which is the first time I've heard a judge do that.
"Victims of crime need to be paid for things like broken glasses when they are punched in the face," Judge Whyte said.
Because Crown had no case without the victim, out of all the above charges. Sachdeva pleaded guilty to one lesser-included charge of assault.
Lesson learned? Time will tell.
-30-
Comments? Errors? Get in touch.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social