A four-year jail sentence handed to a man convicted of sexually abusing a Surrey boy over several years will stand.
But the B.C. Court of Appeal reduced restrictions on the offender's future contact with children under 16.
As is usually the case, there is a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim.
However, while the offender, identified as R.R.B., has been named many times in past media coverage, the May 9 appeal decision specifically states there is now also a ban on using his full name.
While there is often a ban on the name of an offender if they are related to the victim, Madam Justice Jo-Ann Prowse decided that in this case, because the victim was a friend of the family, it was best not to use anyone's full name.
The admitted child molester was sentenced last August after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a minor.
He appealed his sentence, which also included a 20-year ban on being anywhere – parks, schools, pools – children under age16 may be present. It also banned him from using a computer to communicate with anyone under 16 or working or volunteering with kids.
During the appeal hearing last month, R.R.B.'s lawyer argued the ban was particularly harsh as it barred the offender from seeing his own children.
Justice Prowse agreed, calling the two-decade prohibition "excessive" in the circumstances.
"…such a period of prohibition would usually be reserved for the worst case offender, and there are, unfortunately, many offenders far worse than R.R.B."
Further, she said, there was "no basis" for the ban to apply to communication between R.R.B. and his children.
She lifted the ban on public places entirely and reduced the prohibition on working with kids or using a computer to communicate with them to three years. The computer ban, however, does not apply to the offender's own children.
During trial, the court heard that R.R.B. began sexually assaulting the victim when he was about nine. The abuse ended when the boy was 14 and his mother discovered sexually explicit texts between the offender and her son on his cellphone.
Medical experts deemed the offender was not a pedophile, instead attributing his behaviour to emotional immaturity, neediness and an extreme need to please others. He was considered a low risk to reoffend.
Still, his four-year jail sentence was upheld.
Madam Justices Kathryn Neilson and Daphne Smith agreed with Prowse's reasons.