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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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.T., 2008 ONCA 324
DATE: 20080429
DOCKET: M36228
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
O’CONNOR A.C.J.O.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
and
M.T. (A Young Person)
Applicant
Marshall Sack, Q.C. and A. Roman Applicant
Robin Flumerfelt and Jamie Klukach for the Respondent
Heard: April 22, 2008
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The applicant is charged with first degree murder in the brutal killing of a fourteen year old girl. She was detained on the tertiary grounds set out in s. 515(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
[2] I am satisfied that the judge on the application for interim release correctly considered all of the circumstances, including the four factors articulated in s. 515(1)(c), before concluding that detention was required to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. I agree with his conclusion and his views.
[3] As the application judge pointed out, the Crown’s case against the applicant appears to be very strong. Although the applicant was not the actual killer, her alleged role as instigator was extremely serious, so much so that on the Crown’s theory her role was a sine qua non to the murder. She persisted over a period of several months in pressuring and manipulating her co-accused into killing the victim.
[4] The application judge’s reasons disclose that he was particularly alive to the issue of the age of the applicant, who was fifteen years old at the time of the offence, and the impact that detention would have on her.
[5] It is now anticipated that the preliminary hearing will proceed in the summer of this year with the trial early next winter. I am satisfied that, based on the evidence led at the bail hearing, the reasons of the application judge and the projected timetable for the trial, there is no reasonable prospect of success if this matter were to be referred to a panel of judges for reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed.
“D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.”