BANFF – Dangerous offender Albert Muckle, who was convicted of raping and leaving a pregnant woman for dead in Banff 20 years ago, remains behind bars after losing his appeal of a Parole Board of Canada decision denying him parole.
Muckle, who filed an appeal in October against the parole board’s Sept. 19, 2024 decision to deny both day and full parole, claimed the parole board didn’t treat him fairly or take into account Indigenous principles.
On Thursday (Feb. 20), the appeal division of the parole board found Muckle’s appeal was “vague” and “without merit”, and that he was given a “fair hearing” despite his claims otherwise.
“The appeal division concludes that the board did not breach the principles of fundamental justice or base its decision on erroneous information,” states the decision.
“Accordingly, the appeal division affirms the board's decision of September 19, 2024, to deny your day parole and full parole.”
Muckle, now in his mid-40s was convicted of the 2005 aggravated sexual assault and attempted murder of a then 21-year-old woman, who remains in a persistent vegetative state, unable to speak or move.
Muckle met the young woman, who was pregnant, outside a nightclub in Banff. She was found later that day beside the Bow River, where she had been left bloodied, bruised, and unconscious, with her clothing and footwear strewn about the scene.
She was rushed to hospital where it was determined she had been sexually assaulted and strangled to the point that the lack of oxygen left her in a vegetative state.
Muckle admitted he had been using crystal methamphetamine for four or five days leading up to the offence.
He also reported he had not slept for days and that he had consumed significant amounts of alcohol before meeting the young woman.
He denies the aggravated assault and attempted murder of the young woman, arguing it was “consensual” and he was “drinking and partying.”
After pleading guilty, he was declared a dangerous offender and was handed an indefinite prison sentence.
According to the parole board’s Sept. 19 decision, a July 2024 psychological risk assessment on Muckle determined he continues to be a “very high risk for violent reoffending and an above-average risk of sexual reoffending.”
In his appeal of the parole board’s decision, Muckle claimed the board did not meet its policy and legal obligations to him as an Indigenous offender.
The appeal panel, however, said a review of Muckle’s file shows he was given an opportunity to have a culturally responsive hearing involving an elder, which was approved ahead of the parole hearing; however, Muckle retracted his request five days before the hearing.
The appeal panel found the parole board’s written decision demonstrated how it considered he was an Indigenous offender and had family who attended residential school in Canada.
It took note that he suffered an extremely dysfunctional upbringing with exposure to substance abuse, foster care and limited positive role models, that he was abused sexually, physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally during your childhood, and ultimately developed a pattern of running away.
The panel indicated the parole board took into account Muckle’s early experiences of witnessing substance abuse and violence along with personal experiences of abuse and neglect, both in his home and when placed into government care.
The parole board noted Muckle’s long history of substance abuse and that he displayed criminal behaviour and abused substances in an attempt to cope with negative emotions.
Though the parole board has a separate mandate from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), the appeal panel said the hearing’s audio recording reveals Muckle was given an opportunity to speak to his concerns regarding CSC’s case management.
“This included your claims that you do not have access to elders, that non-Indigenous offenders have more access to pathways, and that being Indigenous puts a target on your back,” stated the appeal panel.
“In contrast, at around minute 41 of the hearing’s audio recording, you attribute your improved institutional behaviour and coping to your increased access to Elders and others. For example, you state, ‘if you ever need to talk to your [parole officer] or your elder, they're right there, you just have to ask’.”
Muckle's unique circumstances as Indigenous offender taken into account
The appeal division found the parole board demonstrated its consideration of Muckle’s Indigenous social history (ISH) in its decision and that it was “responsive to your unique circumstances as an Indigenous offender.”
“The board considered how your ISH contributed to your involvement in the criminal justice system, how cultural relevant interventions are and may help you with your personal change, and alternatives to incarceration,” states the appeal panel.
“Taken as a whole, the appeal division concludes that the board met its legal and policy obligations towards you as an Indigenous man.”
Muckle also claimed he wasn’t allowed to have an assistant at his parole hearing and that he was not permitted to call his lawyer before or after the hearing.
But the appeal panel said the parole board indicated he could postpone the hearing to get legal counsel, but Muckle replied: “I don’t think it’s going to matter” and confirmed he was willing to proceed with the hearing.
In his appeal, Muckle said he felt “ambushed” by the media at his parole hearing and claimed he was forced to do the hearing while “suicidal, medically unwell and in extreme pain.”
The appeal decision indicated Muckle was told in August 2024 that a member of the media asked to be at the hearing, noting he did not raise any concerns again on the day of the hearing.
“The appeal division finds that the board acted fairly when it informed you of a member of the media request to observe your hearing and approved the presence of the media member,” states the panel.
Based on the board’s conversation with Muckle during the parole hearing, the appeal division also found Muckle had full opportunity to participate in the hearing.
“At the outset of your hearing, you responded to the board’s inquiry about how you were feeling by indicating you were not feeling well. When asked to clarify whether you were sick or nervous, you stated ‘I think it was something I ate’,” states the panel.
“The board asked you if you were able to continue and you indicated you were. The board let you know that a break can be arranged at any time should you need one. At no point did you request a break or indicate you were unable to continue with the hearing.”
The appeal panel said Muckle openly discussed issues regarding medication, access to culture, and coping mechanisms while actively choosing not to discuss other issues, such as those surrounding the sexual assault and attempted murder of the pregnant Banff woman.
It said towards the end of the parole hearing, when discussing his release plans, Muckle indicated he had been thinking about ending his life.
“The board encouraged you to speak about that with a professional or elder within the institution and reminded you of the progress you have made which contributes to your future,” the panel writes.
“The appeal division finds that you had a meaningful opportunity to state your case during the hearing.”
