Former B.C. teacher convicted of historical child sexual abuse to remain behind bars, Appeal Court rules

Dennis Cooper is seen in a class photo with his Grade 6 teacher at North Vancouver’s Upper Lynn Elementary School in 1977.

A former B.C. teacher convicted of sexually abusing nine boys has lost his bid to be released pending an appeal of his convictions and sentence.

Brian Melicke Moore, who is now 86, was convicted last year of eight counts of sexual interference that occurred between 1976 and 1982 when he was teaching in North Vancouver. He was also found guilty of an additional count of touching a child for a sexual purpose. That offence occurred between 2005 and 2007.

He was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Moore filed a notice of appeal the day the sentence was handed down and applied to be released on bail pending the outcome. A chambers judge dismissed that application, prompting the most recent application to a three-judge panel of the province’s highest court.

According to a decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal Thursday, the chambers judge dismissed Moore’s application to be released after finding his grounds for appeal were relatively weak and his continued detention was necessary in the public interest.

“She highlighted the violent nature and profound wrongfulness of sexual offences against children as well as Mr. Moore’s ‘very high’ moral blameworthiness,” the appeal court decision said, summarizing the chambers judge’s reasons.

“She noted ‘historical sexual offences are no less grave and demand … no less accountability than those committed today.’ She also emphasized the profoundly negative impact of Mr. Moore’s offences on the victims.”

• Related: 85-year-old former B.C. teacher sentenced for historical child sexual abuse

The chambers judge also found that even if Moore successfully argued on appeal that the complainants’ evidence was “tainted by inadvertent or unconscious collusion,” three of the convictions would be unaffected and “a significant prison term would remain,” the decision said.

Moore argued the chambers’ judge erred in her assessment of the strength of his appeal in general, and that she did not properly consider the possibility of him “receiving a substantially reduced sentence” if some convictions were upheld, according to the high court’s decision.

The Court of Appeal found the chambers judge’s decision on the strength of the appeal did not contain any “material errors.”

Moore also argued the chambers judge’s decision should be overturned on the grounds it was “clearly unwarranted” on account of his personal circumstances—specifically his old age and poor health.

In an affidavit filed in support of the appeal, Moore described some of the issues he is having while behind bars.

“He receives many forms of needed assistance and acknowledges his medical needs are generally taken care of,” the decision said.

“However, among other things, he complains the food causes him constipation, his sleep is disturbed by various checks by corrections officers, he is not getting exercise, he has not been offered physiotherapy, he has not been assisted with certain matters of personal hygiene and he is cold. To stay warm, he must remain in bed.”

In addition, a doctor provided an updated report to the court saying his living conditions would likely have a negative overall effect on Moore’s health “and will more likely than not shorten his lifespan.”

The appeal court found the chambers judge was aware of and considered Moore’s old age and ill health, noting she directed the hearing of his conviction and sentence appeal to be expedited.

Further, these issues, the decision said, “cut both ways” when courts are deciding whether an offender should be released on bail pending appeal.

While the time spent behind bars waiting for the appeal to be heard may end up being “a significant portion of the sentence they serve before their death” it is also the case that “there is a greater public interest in seeing that (the offender) begins to serve (their) sentence immediately rather than spending a significant portion of (their) remaining years out on bail,” the decision said.

Overall, the three-judge panel did not find the chambers judge’s decision was unwarranted or unreasonable.