Banff rapist's appeal of parole board decision dismissed
The appeal division of Parole Board of Canada has dismissed an application from a man who violently attacked and raped a woman in Banff almost 20 years ago.
Albert Muckle was given an indeterminate sentence for his role in the attack on a woman in July 2005 that left her in a vegetative state.
Officials say Muckle strangled, punched, sexually assaulted and robbed his victim, leaving her for dead on the banks of the Bow River.
In its latest decision, in response to Muckle's application made late last year, the board said he would not be released on parole, stating that he had a "very high risk of violent reoffending."
This week, the appeal division upheld that decision, saying Muckle had "not raised any ground that would cause it to intervene in the Board's decision."
The board said Muckle had "been involved in over 70 security-related incidents since 2009."
Some of those incidents involved weapons, drugs and uttering threats to other inmates and corrections officers.
The appeal board says "negative institutional behaviour is a relevant factor" in considering whether or not to grant parole for inmates.
"The Appeal Division notes that your behaviour linked to these incidents were of concern as it shows your ongoing problems with complying with the rules in the institution," it wrote.
Muckle also contended he was not given appropriate representation at his parole hearing, though the appeal division said a legal assistant was present.
It also added that Muckle, who is Indigenous, was treated fairly during the hearing.
"The Appeal Division is satisfied that the Board considered culturally relevant alternatives to your incarceration. During the hearing, you spoke of being released to a dry reserve.
"The Board reviewed your release plan and reasonably determined that it was not a viable plan."
The appeal division also dismissed Muckle's concerns that the denial of his release was a violation of his Charter rights.
"The Appeal Division finds that the Board met its own obligation under Steele, and adequately explained why your case was not a grossly mismanaged one."