'I'm angry': Disbelief and heartbreak after Justin Bourque's sentence is reduced

As the news was passed down Thursday morning that Justin Bourque, a Moncton, N.B., man known for killing three RCMP officers in 2014, could now be eligible for parole earlier, widow Nadine Larche is in disbelief.

“I’m discouraged by the decision,” Larche said. “I’m angry, I knew it was coming, but it doesn’t help with the hurt and the pain and the trauma that has resurfaced because of it.”

“It really breaks my heart that we’re all going to have to revisit this in 2039 and that my children and I will have to go through parole hearings.”

Douglas Larche was killed on June 4, 2014, along with fellow officers Dave Ross and Fabrice Gevaudan. In the same incident, officers Darlene Goguen and Eric Dubois were also shot and injured.

“I was boots on the ground, as you say, during the day when that happened,” said Pat Bouchard, one of the central/Atlantic regional directors for the National Police Federation.

“This is something I’m going to carry with me for the rest of my life. Every police officer that answered that call that day, and every police officer … we’re all attached somehow by this job. It’s not just a job or career, we choose this for service, we put our lives in danger for the service of others. So, when something like this happens, we’re all affected,” said Bouchard.

Bourque was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder.

“It was a hate crime,” said Bouchard. “It was hate motivated. This individual targeted individuals because of how they look and who they associated with in a sub culture.”

In 2014, Bourque was convicted of three life sentences to be served consecutively, meaning that he wouldn’t be eligible for parole for 75 years, but on Thursday it was announced that he can now apply for parole after 25 years.

“For me, it’s disappointment in the judgement because for me, it sends a message that crimes like this will be met with a more lenient punishment,” said Larche. “I think there needs to be a deterrent.”

“For me, this is all about him receiving a just and fair sentence and I don’t feel that reducing it, his parole eligibility, is something that is just or fair.”

Following the news on Thursday, many took to social media expressing anger, hurt and distrust with the justice system. 

“The original sentence, in my opinion, was appropriate and there was a sense of peace to the families that this individual was going to spend the rest of his life, the rest of their lives, in a penitentiary or in prison, their natural lives,” said Bouchard.

“But now we’re re-victimizing the victims, we’re making them go through this thought process again, every time that there’s an eligibility for this individual to have parole, so where is the sense of justice in this?”

“This severely devalues the lives of the police officers that were taken and it’s a slap in the face to every member that wears this uniform.”

However, experts say the Court of Appeal didn’t have a choice in changing Bourque’s sentence.

“There was an earlier decision, the Bissonnette decision, that went to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada said, ‘You can not use this section anymore because it’s unconstitutional,' which effectively means you can’t give consecutive periods of parole of 25 years,’” said Professor Emeritus of Law Wayne MacKay.

“For better or for worse, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that it's unconstitutional, cruel and unusual punishment, to have consecutive 25-year parole periods and that’s a decision they’ve made for Canadians at the top level.”

Angela Gevaudan, Fabrice’s wife, said in a victim impact statement obtained by CTV News, “Our criminal justice system focuses on criminal rights,” and, “We need to strike a balance between criminal and victim rights.”

It’s a decision that is causing heartbreak as those impacted try to understand.

“The one thing with the sentencing was the peace of mind for the girls and I,” said Larche.

“While he’s just eligible for parole in 25 years, it doesn’t mean he will get it, but the fact that he’s eligible, it just doesn’t seem to make sense.”