Michael Nehass sentenced to 21 months for in-custody incidents

Michael Nehasswassentenced Thursday to 21 months for incidents that occurred since he's been in custody at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre.

Nehass pleaded guilty to assaulting a guard, threatening guards and causing more than $35,000 in damage to the facility.

He's been in jail, on remand, since December 2011 on charges laid in Watson Lake and he'll soon be on trial for those charges.

Nehass' case received national attention last year, when he appeared naked and in shackles during a video court appearance, as he was pinned to the floor of the correctional centre by guards in riot gear. In December, he received an apology from the presiding judge after his father filed a formal complaint.

A significant amount of Nehass' time in custody has been in segregation and he'sargued that's partly to blame for his actions.

He was self-represented in the hearing, but the court appointed Bibhas Vazeto act as anamicus curiae, a lawyer appointed to ensure his interests are protected.

On Thursday, Nehassand the Crown came up with an agreement on sentencing with Vaze's support.

"There were some comments made in court that made us renew those discussions and you've heard the results," said Crown lawyerEric Marcoux, adding"we agreed on the sentencing position."

The judge sanctioned the sentencing,but with some reluctance.

He said Nehass "set out from the start to be difficult" and that his time in segregation was brought on by his own actions. He went onto say that saying the jail has had difficulty managing Nehass is an understatement.

He's already served more than that. The judge refused a joint application for 1.25 days credit for time already served,fearing it would set a precedent. Nehass remains on remand.

Vazeraised concern with the judge's comments during sentencing, pointing out some of the Crownsubmissionsincluding a jail report outliningincidents of violence, threats and property damagehadnot yetbeen tested in court.

A sentencing deal was reached before the defencehad a chance to make arguments about the submissions, butVaze points out the evidencewas used by the court with respect to its judgment on sentencing.

"In my view that was not a proper methodology in terms of how the evidence should be used because it hadn't been tested." Vazesaid the court may have had other opinions if that had happened and hesaidit might create grounds for an appeal of the sentencing.