A Hells Angels hitman convicted of a brutal murder in Nova Scotia has failed in his attempt to overturn the revocation of his day parole after complaining that the Parole Board of Canada pays too much attention to victims' statements.
Appeal Rejected: Parole Board Stands Firm
Dean Daniel Kelsie, now in his early 50s, is serving a life sentence for the October 2000 shooting death of Sean Simmons in the lobby of a Dartmouth, Nova Scotia apartment building. Court records show Simmons was killed for having had an affair with the wife of a Hells Angels motorcycle gang member.
In a recent appeal decision dated November 7, Kelsie argued unsuccessfully against the March 18 decision that revoked his day parole. The appeal division noted Kelsie's position that victims' statements and presence were given too much weight in the assessment of his case.
Intimidating Behavior in Halfway House
The original parole revocation stemmed from concerning behavior at the Quebec halfway house where Kelsie was staying. According to the March decision, inmates were scared to sleep in the same room as him, and his handlers couldn't find another halfway house willing to accept him.
The parole board documented that Kelsie's non-verbal communication could be intimidating, and his roommates found some of his comments threatening. This created an environment where other residents felt unsafe, ultimately leading to his return to prison.
Legal Obligation to Consider Victims
In his June appeal, Kelsie claimed the parole board failed to observe principles of fundamental justice and its duty to act fairly. He specifically questioned why victim statements were given more weight than his own explanations.
However, the Appeal Division reinforced that the parole board is legally obliged to consider victim impact statements. The decision stated these statements give a face to the consequences of crimes and help board members understand the ongoing trauma caused by offenders' actions.
The appeal panel found no grounds to conclude the board was unduly influenced by victim statements and determined the original decision was reasonable. The division also confirmed that Kelsie's right to be heard had been fully respected throughout the process.
