A pornographic video suddenly flooded video screens in a London courtroom in the middle of a judge’s sentencing decision Tuesday in a human trafficking case.
While the shocking images appeared only for a few seconds, it seemed like longer as courtroom staff scrambled to shut down the feed and figure out how they ended up on the teleconferencing link during a hearing for Joel Ramocan, 32, of Milton.
The subversive practice of hacking a teleconference session with unauthorized content is called Zoombombing and it has happened in other Ontario court jurisdictions during remote court proceedings. The example on Tuesday was particularly jarring because the interruption happened in London’s largest, most secure courtroom designed for large prosecutions. The room has several large video screens and more than a dozen smaller screens for legal teams, accused people, the judge and a jury.
One of the human trafficking victims was sitting in the courtroom directly in front of a big screen, while another had logged in to watch the sentencing remotely. Both of their identities, along with three other victims identified in the expansive case, are protected by court order.
“The projection of offensive pornographic content is vile enough to the proper decorum of this court, but it is made all the more insidious when it occurs in the context of a sentencing decision that could not be more serious with referencing the procuring of prostitution and the inherent loss of human dignity,” Superior Court Justice Michael Carnegie said after returning from a hastily called recess.
He apologized to the victims, telling them they had every right to expect both the province and the federal court “to ensure the security of electronic participation in proceedings.”
The use of teleconferencing has become routine practice in the justice system since the COVID-19 pandemic began more than four years ago. The use of videos links during the public health crisis was essential for cases to continue while keeping the public safe.
Though the need to keep people physically separated for public health purposes has waned, the use of teleconferencing technology has allowed people unable to attend hearings to watch and participate. It’s been especially effective for case management, for witnesses at trials who live in other jurisdictions, for lawyers who can attend multiple places in the same day and for media covering cases.
The remote courts have expanded the open courts principle, but rarely have seen breaches such as the Zoombombing at Ramocan’s sentencing.
The teleconferencing link at Ramocan’s hearing was ordered by Carnegie at Ramocan’s last court appearance so his defence lawyer, Michael Owoh, could attend the sentencing from his Toronto-area office instead of driving to London.
After the Zoombombing, Carnegie ordered the court registrar to restrict remote access to persons who previously had indicated they would be joining. He added the development of remote courts “is an example of a success over the past number of years.
“Today is a glaring demonstration of its weaknesses. For that the court apologizes,” he said.
Carnegie sentenced Ramocan to 30 months in prison for his limited role in a far bigger human trafficking scheme orchestrated by his friend, who is the principal offender in the case but has yet to be sentenced.
Ramocan had pleaded not guilty in May on the eve of what would have been a multi-week trial to one count of procuring prostitution, using a legal loophole to preserve appeal rights of a pre-trial motion decision on trial delay that hadn’t been released at that point. Also found guilty was the principal offender, who was convicted of 10 counts, and his mother of one count of receiving financial benefits.
Carnegie noted Ramocan’s role was “relatively narrow.” The Crown and the defence pointed to his party liability to help the principal offender, his longtime friend, recruit two young women.
There was no evidence he “engaged in coercive or violent conduct” but was present for death threats made by the principal offender.
“What is clear, however, is an awareness of the broader scope of the principal’s prostitution-related exploitative intentions” and his willingness, though limited, to assist, Carnegie said.
Between 2016 and 2020, the principal offender trafficked five women into the sale of sexual services in several Ontario cities including London, Windsor, Mississauga, Sudbury, Orillia, Burlington, Brantford, Woodstock, Waterloo and Guelph.
One 18-year-old victim was ordered to meet Ramocan at London’s White Oaks Mall to buy lingerie, then was taken by him to a hotel where he paid for a room and took photos of her for an online ad, before leaving her to provide sexual services.
She continued to work for the principal offender until March 2020. She was confronted for disobeying him, having a relationship with Ramocan and for talking on her phone. The principal offender then threatened he would have Ramocan, who was present, take her into the woods and shoot her.
“The reality of being trafficked and exploited has had a long and lasting impact on her life,” Carnegie said. Though scarred by her exploitation, she wrote in a victim impact statement she felt “pride that she was able to bring an end to her abuse and to prevent the offenders from harming others.”
“She has every reason to feel proud,” Carnegie said.
Ramocan also recruited a 22-year-old woman to work for the principal offender in Toronto. The Crown had argued for a six-year sentence while the defence had suggested 14 months.
Ramocan already is serving sentences for a string of crimes. In March 2023, he was sentenced to 33 months in prison for an armed robbery and unlawful gun possession. He was given an additional 18 months in April 2023 for drug trafficking, more gun offences and for failing to comply with a release order.
Carnegie’s 30-month sentence will run consecutively to the time Ramocan is already serving.
“Sir, you still have a debt to society and it gives me no pleasure to add to that burden,” Carnegie said to Ramocan.” Frankly sir, as you’ve heard through the course of my reasons, it is not simply my function to assess your circumstances personally, it is my function to comment and denounce the very nature of the behaviour you engaged in.
“I hope, sir, that moving forward, you complete this sentence and address your existing relationships in a healthy way.”