WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
AND IS SUBJECT TO:
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act…
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person…
(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
CITATION: R. v. M.A.N., 2007 ONCA 12
DATE: 20070112
DOCKET: C42590
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – M. A. N. (A Young Person) (Appellant)
BEFORE:
WEILER, MACFARLAND and LAFORME JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Robert C. Sheppard
for the appellant
Andrew Cappell
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
January 9, 2007
On appeal from the disposition imposed on October 8, 2004 by Justice Kathleen E. McGowan of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Court).
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The appellant pled guilty and was convicted on two counts of dangerous driving causing death. He received a disposition of six months deferred custody, eighteen months probation, 150 hours community service, and a ten year driving prohibition. He appeals the portion of his disposition relating to the driving prohibition. In the course of delivering her reasons at first instance the judge at first instance said:
It is just that conduct such as that exhibited by M. on September 20 last year be clearly denunciated by a significant loss of driving privileges the message should get to the community that if you drive dangerously and your conduct takes a life, then the only reasonable response for society is to remove your privileges for a long time.
[2] The appellant submits that in making this comment the sentencing judge was using general deterrence as a factor in her sentence and that this was an error in principle: See R. v. P. (B.W.) (2006), 2006 SCC 27, 209 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.). He further submits that the driving prohibition is too long and seeks to have it reduced to five years from the date of the sentence or October, 2009.
[3] The Crown’s position is that in the context of the sentence as a while, the driving prohibition is not an unfit sentence. We agree. While it was open to the sentencing judge to give the appellant a custodial disposition she did not do so. Section 38 recognizes the need for protection of the public. As well, the principles of proportionality and meaningful consequences support the overall disposition including the length driving prohibition. Accordingly, the disposition including the ten year driving prohibition is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.