2 total
The court declined a Dangerous Offender designation due to treatability prospects, instead imposing a Long Term Offender designation and a nine-and-a-half-year sentence.
The Crown sought to have Adam Nevills declared a Dangerous Offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code following his conviction for sexually assaulting an elderly woman during a break and enter.
The court conducted a two-stage analysis, focusing on designation and sentencing.
While the court found Nevills presented a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, it was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct was intractable, citing some prospect of treatability through a highly structured federal correctional program, the link between his offending and drug use (which could be monitored), and the anticipated effects of aging.
Consequently, the court declined to designate him a Dangerous Offender, instead designating him a Long Term Offender under s. 753(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.
An application to unseal a ten-year-old youth record to impeach a complainant's credibility was dismissed due to privacy interests.
The respondent sought access to a sealed youth criminal justice record under Section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The respondent claimed the record related to a conviction for making a false report of sexual assault and sought to use it to impeach the credibility of the complainant in a Section 810 peace bond application.
The court dismissed the application, finding that while the respondent had a valid and substantial interest in the record, disclosure was not necessary in the interests of justice.
The probative value of a nearly ten-year-old youth conviction was minimal, particularly given the principle of diminished responsibility inherent in the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the complainant's maturation into adulthood.
The privacy rights of the young person under the legislative scheme outweighed the probative value of the record.
