Inmate who killed cellmate to serve 16 years before parole eligibility

As part of her submissions, Crown prosecutor Linh Lê outlined Vandewater’s criminal record which includes 28 convictions, and dates back to when he was 12 years old. The record includes four prior convictions for aggravated assault including one from 2016 when Vandewater was involved in a seven-on-one attack of another inmate at the prison.

Lê asked for parole to be in the range of 16 to 18 years. She explained the most troubling aspect of the case was the unanswered question of why Van Camp was killed.

“The gang or the prison code ensures that even if someone other than Mr. Vandewater knows, we will never know and that is what Mr. Van Camp’s family must live with,” she said.

Defence lawyer Brian Pfefferle went into further details of Vandewater’s past, describing a dysfunctional family, years of being bounced around in foster care, and was essentially raised in institutions.

“He admits to stealing for survival which led to stealing for gain and eventually a lifestyle of criminality,” Pfefferle said.

The defence requested Vanderwater’s parole eligibility date to be in the range of 14 to 16 years. He asked Justice B.J. Scherman to offer a Vandewater a “carrot” as a means he could turn his life around.

Vandewater’s trial was held last February, and numerous correctional officers were called to testify, as well as the coroner who performed the autopsy. Vandewater himself also took the stand where he described Van Camp as a friend. He claimed he killed Van Camp out of self defence and said it was his cellmate who initiated the fight.

Justice Scherman later ruled he did not believe Vandewater, based on the amount of injuries inflicted on Van Camp, and the lack thereof on Vandewater.

A photo of one of the weapons used by Tyler Vandewater to stab Chris Van Camp. (supplied/Court of Queen’s Bench)

Victim impact statements

One of the more emotional aspects of Friday’s hearing were victim impact statements delivered by Chris Van Camp’s family members.

Lauren Laithwaite, Van Camp’s mother, broke down in tears when describing the grief she feels.

“Replaying my last conversations with him, telling him to be careful, hugging him, crying, and knowing now that I was saying goodbye,” she said. “It’s unnatural for a parent to bury their child. It’s also unbearable to think of the way he died and that he was alone”

Chris Van Camp. (Facebook)

Laithwaite added she hopes Vandewater can awaken one day from the “violent consciousness he acts and lives with” and not recognize the person who was capable of such a vicious and violent act. Van Camp’s father Ashley also explained difficulties coping with his grief.

“His final moments being of such a violent and painful death going through my mind is the last thing think I think about before I go to bed and the first thing I think about when I wake up,” he said. “This is a life sentence of grief and pain.”

Vandewater’s remarks

Prior to Justice Scherman’s final decision, Tyler Vandewater was also given one last opportunity to speak, and reiterated his claim that he and Van Camp were not just cellmates, but also close friends.

“I do regret this every day of my life and not just the penalty that I’m going to be facing. But the fact I did consider him my family and that the situation we were both put in, not just him and me which will impact the rest of my life,” he said.

Justice Scherman said he found Vandewater’s comments to be very troubling.

“With all due respect this makes the offence and the extent of the violence that was inflicted on Mr. Van Camp simply incomprehensible,” he said.

When explaining his decision, Scherman said he took into account Vandewater’s troubling childhood, Vandewater’s “propensity to violence,” and also the defence’s request that Vandewater be offered some sort of incentive to turn his life around.

“The prison records and assessments don’t hold out much promise that Mr. Vandewater will change but I have concluded with reservations that the parole ineligibility will be 16 years,” he said.

The next chapter

Lauren Laithwaite has filed a lawsuit against Canada’s attorney general and minister of public safety demanding answers why her son, who was arrested on May 29, 2017 for breaching parole conditions, did not qualify for release under Canada’s Good Samaritan Act.

She claims he never should have been there in the first place.

Van Camp was released on parole a month before he took illegal drugs on May 24, 2017 and was hospitalized. Five days later, after waking up from a coma, he was transported from Bowden Institution, to the Edmonton Institution, and then to the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, where he arrived June 6, 2017.

The Act, which was made official in 2017, provides an exemption from charges of simple possession of a controlled substance. It applies to anyone seeking emergency support and can protect offenders from charges concerning a pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence or parole violations related to simple possession.

The Act also can exempt those from possession charges if they call 911 for themselves or another person suffering an overdose, as well as anyone who is at the scene when emergency help arrives.

Laithwaite has previously indicated to paNOW she expects to have a hearing on the matter in June.

Vandewater appeals

Vandewater’s lawyer Pfefferle also filed an appeal of his client’s conviction today, requesting a new trial if successful.

The appeal claims the trial judge erred by not considering precedent case law that supported Vandewater’s self defence claim, among other evidentiary concerns.

—

nigel.maxwell@jpbg.ca

On Twitter: @nigelmaxwell

by Nigel Maxwell

Inmate who killed cellmate to serve 16 years before parole eligibility

What's Trending