Hells Angels hitman complains Parole Board of Canada pays too much attention to victims
A Hells Angels hitman who killed a man in Nova Scotia can’t fathom why the Parole Board of Canada takes his victim’s family’s word over his when it comes to granting him freedom.
Dean Daniel Kelsie is serving a life sentence for the October 2000 shooting death of Sean Simmons in the lobby of a Dartmouth, N.S., apartment building. The court heard Simmons was killed for having had an affair with the wife of a member of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang.
In a new appeal, Kelsie, who is in his early 50s, argued unsuccessfully against the decision this past spring to yank his day parole.
“You submit that the board’s reasons demonstrate that the victims directly influenced the board’s decision, and you wonder about the actual impact of their presence and more importantly, the weight that the board gave to their representations and attendance,” said a new decision on Kelsie from the Parole Board of Canada’s Appeal Division.
“You are of the opinion that the board’s decision fails to consider the full context of your case, and that the decision was unduly influenced by the victims who were present. You argue that the victim’s statements and presence were given too much weight in the assessment and that you do not understand why their statements were given more weight than your explanations.”
The parole board revoked Kelsie’s day parole on March 18 because inmates at the Quebec halfway house where he was staying were scared to sleep in the same room as him, and his handlers couldn’t find another halfway house that would take him.
This past June, Kelsie asked the appeal division to overturn that, according to the decision dated Nov. 7. He argued that the parole board “failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice” and its “duty to act fairly.”
The parole board countered that it considered “the poignant and emotional statements made by victims at the outset of the hearing that highlight the trauma that continues to be caused by (Kelsie’s) actions.”
It noted those are important because they “give a face to the consequences of the crimes” and that the parole board is legally obliged to consider them.
The decision from the Appeal Division notes it could not find “any grounds that would lead to the conclusion that the board was unduly influenced by the statements and that the board’s decision was unreasonable because of this consideration.”
The Appeal Division found the parole board respected Kelsie’s right to be heard.
According to the March decision that sent Kelsie back to prison, his non-verbal communication could be intimidating, and his roommates in a Quebec halfway house found some of his comments threatening.
At his appeal, Kelsie called that a “misperception from others,” and he noted he’d “never been double bunked before and that” caused “adjustment issues.”
Kelsie told the Appeal Division that he’s had “no more violence in” him since 2015.
“At the hearing, you admitted that you needed to address your attitude,” said the new decision. “You explained that you … have difficulty communicating with others and that you do not realize that your attitude is intimidating.”
Since he returned to prison, Kelsie told the Appeal Division he’s been working on himself, and that he was “able to defuse a potentially conflictual situation by taking a step back and discussing the issues with the other offender.”
The Appeal Division found that Kelsie’s “point of view and explanations were considered” during the March hearing that sent him back to prison. “While you believe that your explanations during the hearing were not considered, the Appeal Division finds that this was not the case.”
It was “within the board’s discretion,” despite Kelsie’s explanations, to find he “demonstrated a lack of insight” and that he was “unable to adjust” his behaviour, despite attempts by his case management team to keep him out of prison.
Support from the halfway house where he was living until this past March “was withdrawn despite your commitment to a behavioural contract,” said the Appeal Division, noting Kelsie “also continued to experience challenges with co-workers and (was) sometimes an instigator.”
It stressed “both positive and negative information was considered by the board,” before it sent Kelsie back to prison.
“Your right to be heard was respected.”
Kelsie conceded that he has “committed very serious crimes” but that he’s changed since then.
“Overall, you believe that the decision to revoke your release is unreasonable because it fails to explain why your perceived negative attitude has increased your risk when there was no indication of reoffending or a return to any criminality,” said the Appeal Division.
But “it was within the board’s discretion to have placed more weight on other more negative information,” it said.
The Appeal Division disagreed with Kelsie’s “submission that it was unreasonable for the board to have drawn a link between the behaviours leading to” his most recent suspension and the risk he poses.
“As noted by the board, you have a violent criminal history and despite your index offence occurring more than two decades ago, you were recently convicted of uttering threats for an incident that occurred during a previous period of day parole. Therefore, while you submit that you have changed and conceded that there is still work to do on your personality traits, it was reasonable for the board to have found that you were incapable of modifying your behaviour.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.