How did high-risk offender Randall Hopley disappear? There's plenty of blame going around

It's been nearly a week since a high-risk offender virtually disappeared while under long-term supervision,and there's been no shortage of blame overwhere Canada's penal system fell short.

B.C.'s premier blamed Canada's parole board, suggesting that impending legislation could prevent this situation from happening again.

The premier's political opponents suggested he "look in the mirror," claiming the B.C. Prosecution Service could have argued Hopleystay in custody following a recent violation of his release conditions.

All the while, in a media statement the Parole Board of Canada seemingly points to the Correctional Service of Canada.

So how exactly did Randall Hopley a man under extensive supervision orders with a highly publicized criminal history disappear during what was supposed to be a short trip from his halfway house to a thrift store?

Here's what we know.

Criminal history

Hopley has a history of assault and sexual assault, andcommitted three offences of a sexual nature against children in the past, according to court records and police.

Notably, he served six yearsin prison for abducting a three-year-old in the middle of the night from his home in Sparwood, B.C. about a 20-kilometre drive northwest from the border with Albertain 2011. He returned the boy to his home four days later, after holding him in an abandoned cabin.

The 58-year-oldwasreleasedunder a Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO) in November 2018, at which time Vancouver police issued a public warning that he still posed a risk of significant harm to young boys.

Supervision orders

The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) told CBC News it does not decide whether an individual is put under anLTSO. Rather, it's imposed by the courts after an offender completes their sentence.

The board is responsible for determining the conditions of the supervision order, balancing what's considered reasonable to protect the community with the need to re-integrate the offender into society.

Meanwhile,Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is responsible for establishing a sound release plan for the offender, and for supervising them in the community.

"Correctional Service of Canada would have given them a very thorough report in terms of his time in custody and what they felt like the risks were, and then the national parole board would put together a set of conditions and guidelines on how he should reside in the community safely," said Rob Dhanu,a former crown prosecutor and lawyer withDhanu Dhaliwal Law Group.

Based on information from police, the parole board, and court documents, the conditions ofHopley'ssupervision orders included not being allowed to use a computer, not being allowed to be in the presence of children,ankle monitoring, and residing at a corrections-approved residential facility, or halfway house.

CBC News has requested the full list of conditions for Hopley'ssupervision orders from the parole board.

Violations

In January, Hopley was charged with two counts of violating his supervision orders. He allegedly used a computer at a public library within the presence of children onNov. 10, 2022.

The B.C. ProsecutionService says he was arrested and detained until a bail hearing. Spokesperson Dan McLaughlin said prosecutors opposed his release.

However, the court issued a release order on Feb. 8 with conditions, includingstaying away from children, no using computers, and residing at a corrections-approved facility.

Then he vanished

Randall Hopley was staying at ahalfway house in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside that's managed in partnership with CSC, according to court documents.Police say he had an evening curfew. He left the centre on Saturday afternoon, telling supervisors that he was going to a thrift store in the Mount Pleasant area.

Police say sometime after he left, he removed his ankle bracelet to deliberately avoid being found.

When he failed to return to the halfway house, the VPD was informed by the Correctional Service of Canada. A Canada-wide warrant for Hopley was issued Saturday evening.

Hopley was supposed to appear in court on Nov. 6 to face charges related to alleged supervision order violations. He never showed.

Shifting blame

Days after Hopleywentmissing, B.C. Premier David Eby was quick to blame the federal parole board for not putting sufficient safeguards in place to keep the offender from fleeing.

He then called on the senate to passa federal bail reform bill, or Bill C-48,which targets repeat violent offenders, saying it was "unacceptable" it had yet to be passed.

Dhanu says the billwould have made no difference in the Hopley situation at this stage, adding that the bill is only meant to impose tougher penalties on people who are before the courts after a repeat violent offence.

"Those offences relate to individuals who have a history of violence, individuals who are before the courts for serious weapons offences," said Dhanu.

"What Mr. Hopley is accused of having done here is breaching the conditions of his LTSO, it's not as if he was out there and committed a new violent offence."

Dhanusays the parole board deserves scrutiny, particularly when it comes to the conditions it imposed on his supervision.

"How did the national parole board assess the likelihood he would do something like this?" he said, adding that both corrections and parole have challenges finding adequate staff to conduct assessments."What type of risk was assessed, and were the proper conditions put in place for Mr. Hopley to reside in the community safely?"

On Monday, B.C. United MLA Elenore Sturko suggested the B.C. Prosecution Service could have done more to keep Hopley in custody following his recent supervision violation.

The service contends Crown prosecutors were opposed to his release, but the court ruled otherwise, with Justice Jennifer Oulton granting Hopley a release order.

Dhanu says it's common for the court to grant release orders in situations like this.

"We cannot simply lock them up and throw away the key," said Dhanu."The courts arealways balancing individual liberties with protecting the public, and in this case they thought they had that balance right."