Reena Virk’s killer has had her day parole revoked after detection of drugs in urine tests and poor behaviour linked to a higher risk to reoffend.
Formerly known as Kelly Ellard, Kerry Marie Sim had been arrested on Jan. 28 in South Surrey.
Prior to that, she had been on day parole regularly since 2017 and was living in a halfway house as she raises two children she had while in custody.
Last October, her day parole was extended for another six months, subject to several conditions, including that she stay away from alcohol, drugs and those involved in criminal activity.
In its decision, the Parole Board of Canada said Sim claimed her positive drug-test results were caused by prescribed medication, but said the Correctional Service of Canada confirmed that wasn’t the case.
“The Board notes you failed to provide a urine sample on two separate occasions, constituting a breach. As a result, the Board finds the information provided by the CSC to be more reliable than your version.”
Sim waived her right to a hearing on May 16, indicating she did not want media present at the hearing.
Sim is serving a life sentence for the second-degree murder of Virk, who was 14 when she was killed in 1997.
Then 15, she and a group of friends who had invited Virk to the area swarmed and beat her. Virk was then dragged into the Gorge Waterway and held under the water by Ellard until she drowned.
“The judge found your conduct after the murder showed utter disregard for the life taken,” the board said in the parole decision.
When considering Sim’s risk of criminal behaviour, the board said the now 42-year-old has “poor emotions management impulsivity, negative associates,” and that “feeling a sense of injustice and unresolved childhood trauma all played a role in [her] offence cycle.”
The board noted that Sim argued she did not consistently take her prescribed medication due to her fear of a positive urinalysis result, and claimed that led to her not coping as well as she normally would.
Along with not consuming drugs or alcohol, Sim’s parole conditions included avoiding specific people and following a treatment plan while on day parole.
The board said in July 2021, a urinalysis test for Sim was positive for codeine.
Last October, the community residential facility or halfway house where Sim was living reported that she was antagonizing, threatening and insulting. In November, staff noted that she smelled like marijuana and had red eyes.
A urine test was requested that Sim failed on two separate occasions. She was placed on house arrest and sent for another test the next day, which was negative.
The board noted that Sim has struggled emotionally due to her children’s behavioural issues and voiced safety concerns following the release of a television mini-series documenting her offence.
After a positive urinalysis test for methamphetamines, she was confined to quarters. She was later apprehended at the halfway house for breaching parole conditions.
“You were resistant, would not leave your room, made vague suicidal comments and were argumentative. While in police custody, you were noted to be uncooperative (screaming and kicking),” the board said in the report.
“While in provincial custody your behaviour remained problematic. You showed poor emotions mismanagement, hit, and kicked walls, threatened suicide, and stated you were not going to return to the federal prison.”
Sim arrived at a federal institution in January, and on April 5, was selected to provide a random urinalysis.
“The test result returned positive for non-prescribed medication,” said the decision.
Sim claimed it was caused by prescribed medication, but it was confirmed that the medication she was taking would not provide a false positive, the decision said.
Sim then wrote a letter claiming she took another offender’s medication when offered.
The board said that despite the interventions available to her within the institution, awareness of the rules and knowing the risks involved, Sim has shown that she continues to have significant problems with emotional management, substance misuse and association with negative peers.
“You disregarded minimum supervision expectations, and when this was addressed with you, you became hostile, argumentative, antagonizing, lacked accountability and deflected blame,” the decision said.
“Despite the time you have had for self-reflection since returning to custody, the Board finds you continue to engage in behaviours and thinking that contributed to your suspension and are related to your risk to re-offend.”
