A Yukon man convicted of sexual assault has been designated as a dangerous offender.

Jackie Kodwat, 46, was given the designation Friday along with a sentence of six years and a long-term supervision order of 10 years. He was given credit for 25.5 months served in pre-sentence custody.

In October 2016, Kodwat was convicted of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl.

He was charged following an incident in December 2015 where the victim ended up at his home while tired and under the influence of alcohol.

She testified at trial via CCTV that she woke up with her pants around her ankles and found Kodwat “trying to pull her close to him.”

Kodwat appeared in territorial court last week during arguments over the designation and sentencing.

Crown prosecutors Noel Sinclair and Kevin MacGillivray argued that Kodwat should be designated as a dangerous offender as he has a long history of sexual and violent offences.

Kodwat’s record includes convictions for 25 adult offences.

These include 13 violent offences, four of which are serious sexual assaults.

But defence lawyer Vincent Larochelle argued there was insufficient evidence for the designation.

He highlighted the gap between two of the offences, arguing that Kodwat’s record did not show the pattern of behaviour required for a dangerous offender designation.

The court heard evidence from witnesses about programming Kodwat would receive in a federal penitentiary and after he is released.

Candice Goldstone, the regional program manager for the Pacific Institution/Regional Treatment Centre, testified by video about intake and correctional programs.

She explained that inmates are taken to the regional reception centre for a 90-day assessment to formulate a corrections plan that includes programming, mental health needs, and educational upgrading.

Inmates are then taken to their penitentiary placement, where they are waitlisted to attend prescribed programming.

Kodwat would attend high-intensity sex offender programming, which includes 104 group and individual sessions, of two to 2 1/2 hours each.

Goldstone testified that a four-year sentence is ideal to allow time for the main program, follow-up maintenance programming, educational upgrading and vocational training to strengthen offenders’ prospects of success when they’re released into the community.

“When there’s a two-year sentence, there’s a risk that the offender would not receive programming,” Goldstone said.

On cross-examination, Goldstone testified that inmates can get into programming early and are waitlisted based on parole dates.

Larochelle noted that fewer aboriginal offenders are released by their first eligible parole date in comparison to non-aboriginal offenders.

Ramtin Sadafi, a Correctional Services of Canada parole officer supervisor in metro Vancouver, spoke about long-term supervision orders.

He explained that there is community programming for inmates who have not completed programming while incarcerated.

He also testified that addressing breaches is more challenging under long-term supervision orders than parole.

Larochelle argued that it was clear that two years would be sufficient to allow corrections to deliver high-intensity treatment. While treatment while incarcerated is ideal, he added, the court doesn’t deal with ideals.

Larochelle also argued it was not appropriate for the court to speculate on what might happen in corrections.

The Crown argued that a short sentence would remove early release, which is one of the most effective motivational tools to get inmates to engage in programming.

The court also heard about Kodwat’s psychological assessment, which determined that his likelihood of reoffending is high.

It also found that Kodwat’s entrenched behaviours arise from his anti-social personality disorder.

It did praise him for getting alcohol abuse under control and made good future prognostics for his disorder

It also noted that as Kodwat reaches middle age, his risk for reoffending significantly reduces.

The court also considered a Gladue report which detailed Kodwat’s difficult childhood which was affected by the legacy of residential schools and included violence, drug abuse, and child prostitution.

The mother and father of the victim also read victim impact statements about how the sexual assault has affected their daughter and family.

“I feel my daughter has changed dramatically since the abuse,” read the father.

“She used to be outgoing and hang around with her friends and family. Now, since then, she stays home mostly in her room.”

The mother spoke about the emotional toll the assault had taken on her and how she has missed work and time with family to attend appointments, meetings and court.

“I had to witness my daughter losing herself,” she said.

“I’ve lost my happy, loving daughter because now she is gone emotionally and physically.”

Justice Donald Luther agreed with the Crown that Kodwat had shown a pattern by victimizing four vulnerable women with serious sexual offences and had a high likelihood of reoffending.

“I am, without any hesitation whatsoever, making this finding,” he said of the designation.

“It’s tragic, and I feel bad in many ways that your life was as bad as it was in your early years, but we can’t have more victims.”

Luther will file written reasons for the decision by June 9.

It will address issues including age, substance abuse, the effect of the proceeding, timing and importance of programming, the psychological assessment, impact on the victim and Gladue factors.

Earlier this year, Larochelle filed an appeal of Kodwat’s sexual assault conviction on seven grounds, including that “the judge engaged in speculation and made findings unsupported by evidence.”

The appeal alleges that Judge Luther erred in his treatment of Kodwat’s criminal record, engaged in speculation and relied on unfounded sexual preferences of young women.

“The trial judge is now introducing stereotypes against the accused and plunging the courts back into an era of irrational and unproven assumptions,” reads appeal documents.  

The appeal is based on Judge Luther’s written reasons for decision.

Luther wrote that he found the defence’s argument that Kodwat and the victim had consensual sex to be “preposterous” and “self-serving”.

“It is inconceivable that an attractive 17-year-old girl would consent to kiss for 20 to 25 minutes and then have unprotected sexual intercourse with the accused who meant nothing to her and whom she did not remember-and furthermore who was 28 years her senior,” he wrote.