Crime 'cheaper by the dozen': Crown says in arguing triple murderers should spend minimum 75 years in prison

The province's top court is hearing the sentence appeals involvingthree triple murderers, including Douglas Garland, who killed a five-year-old boy and hisgrandparents.

Garland was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 75 years threeparole ineligibility periods of 25 years that are consecutive rather than concurrent. His lawyer has argued the sentence is "overlyharsh."

ACalgary jury foundGarland guilty in 2017 of the first-degree murders of five-year-old Nathan O'Brien and the boy's grandparents, Alvin and Kathy Liknes.

Earlier Tuesday, the court also heard the prosecution's appeals ofJason Klaus and Joshua Frank's sentence.

• The never-before-heard details of the Douglas Garland investigation from lead detective

Sentence appeals heard together

The two menmurdered Klaus's parents, Gordon and Sandra Klaus, and his sister, Monica Klaus,in 2013 at the victims' home on a farm near Castor, about 140 kilometres east of Red Deer. Those killers will be able to apply for parole after 25 years.

The sentence appeals were to be heard together becauseeach involve the same legal principle: when it is appropriate to impose consecutive parole ineligibilityperiods.

Garland is appealing his sentence while the prosecution is appealing Klaus and Frank's sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appealwill reserve its decision.

Garland sentence 'overlyharsh'

At Garland's trial, Court of Queen's Bench Justice David Gates ruled the triple murderer would not be able to apply for parole for 75 years because ofaggravating factors including Nathan's young age and Garland's lack of remorse.

Garland's lawyer, Kim Ross, said his client's sentence of three consecutive paroleineligibilities "clearly is overlyharsh."

Ross argued that Gates suggested there was no difference betweena 25, 50 or 75-year parole ineligibility period.

"If the court says there's no difference, why not go for the least restrictive sentence, 25 years, and then leave with parole board," said Ross.

But prosecutor Christine Rideout argued Gates's sentence was justified because it "encompassed the multiple murders committed by Mr. Garland."

Victims' DNA found on Garland property

On June 29, 2014, Nathan had been at his grandparents for asleepover. When the boy's mother arrived to pick him up, all three family members were gone and the home was covered in blood.

Rideout argued that when it comes to multiple murders in Garland's case, a childat an impromptu sleepover it doesn't make sense that the offender gets thesame sentence for deciding to kill the witness rather than leave him.

"This court needs to send that message when you do this, when you expand your plan to include the elimination of a witness, you will be dealt with more harshly."

The three family members had been attacked at the home before Garland took them to his parents' farm nearAirdrie. There, he disposed of the bodies.

Bone fragments, flesh and teeth were found in a burn pit on the property.

The Crown had argued that Garland's anger over a dispute about a patent for an oilfield pump that he and AlvinLikneshad worked on together had built up to the point where he meticulously plotted the killings.

Last year, the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected Garland's conviction appeal.

Crimes become 'cheaper by the dozen'

In arguing Klaus and Frank should face consecutive parole ineligibility periods, prosecutor IwonaKuklicz said the killerswere handed a sentence that sent a message their crimes were "cheaper by the dozen."

Thetwo killers received concurrent parole ineligibility periods and can apply for release after 25 years. Their lawyers have argued the trial judge did not err and asked the appeal court to uphold the sentences.

The prosecution is appealing that sentence and on Tuesdaytold a panel of Alberta Court of Appeal judges that consecutive parole ineligibility periods should have been imposed, meaning Klaus and Frank wouldn't be able to apply for release for 75 years.

"It is difficult to see how the trial judge couldn't have found this to have been unique in the case of hiring a hitman to eliminate an entire family for money and then ultimately burning down a house to cover up any evidence," said Kuklicz.

• Two men who killed central Alberta farm family sentenced to life in prison

Killers' Confessions

Klaus and Frankwerefound guilty on three counts offirst-degree murder in the 2013 shooting deaths of Klaus family at their home on a farm near Castor, about 140 kilometres east of Red Deer.

The killers set the houseon fire afterward.

Klaus, who was set to inherit the family farm after the deaths, was in financial trouble with a cocaine and gambling addiction. Hebecameworried his parents would find out he hadbeen stealing money from them and forging cheques.

Klaus offered Frank money to help him carry out the killings.

Police ran an undercover operation ending with confessions from both men.

Life sentences

Court of Queen's Bench Justice EricMacklin sided with defence lawyers in imposing the minimum 25-year parole ineligibility period.

Macklin said with no hope of ever leaving prison, he believed the offenders wouldhave less motivationto behave while behind bars.

Klaus's lawyer Michael Bates reiterated that sentence imposed by Macklin does not mean the two killers will get out after 25 years.

"Parliament did not take that discretion from a trial judge," said Bates. "As soon as you issue a life sentence, the offender's life is in hands of Parole Board."

Bates also pointed out that courts have the opportunity to increase parole ineligibility periods on cases involving multiple first-degree murder convictions only by "25-year jumps."

"That's not tinkering," said Bates.

Frank's lawyer Andrea Urquhart also argued the trial judge did not err in concurrent parole ineligibilities.

Macklin, said Urquhart, properly considered the seriousness of the offence but also weighed factors like Frank's background,family support, and mental health issues in determining a 25-year parole ineligibility was appropriate.