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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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.
R. v. S.P., 2011 ONCA 335
DATE: 20110429
DOCKET: C52209
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacPherson, Blair and Epstein JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
S. P.
Appellant
Brian Snell, for the appellant
Benita Wassenaar, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: April 27, 2011
On appeal from the disposition imposed on November 6, 2009, by Justice John B. McMahon of the Superior Court of Justice.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant appeals against the sentence imposed on him for second-degree murder. At the time he committed the offence – an unprovoked, senseless and very violent attack on a 20-year old man he knew well, apparently for financial reasons – the appellant was 16 years and 9 months of age. The sentencing judge, McMahon J., sentenced the appellant, as an adult, to life in prison with parole ineligibility for seven years pursuant to s. 745.1(c) of the Criminal Code.
[2] The appellant submits that the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider that he could decline to give credit for pre-sentence custody under a youth sentence, thereby enhancing the possibility that a youth sentence might be sufficient in this case.
[3] We disagree. Defence counsel at trial made no suggestion along these lines. Moreover, on the facts of this case, the combination of the appellant’s age at the time of the offence and the nature of the crime, coupled with the deference that is owed to a sentencing judge, support the imposition of an adult sentence.
[4] The appellant filed an application to admit fresh evidence, the purport of which is that the appellant’s recent behaviour in the youth facility has been positive and promising. Although the fresh evidence is mixed in that there are indications of recent incidents involving marijuana and violence – two matters of concern to the trial judge - we agree that the appellant has shown signs of progress and rehabilitation. These factors can be dealt with in the future by the youth court justice if the appellant makes an application under s. 76 of the Youth Court Justice Act.
[5] The appeal is dismissed.
“J. C. MacPherson J.A.”
“R. A. Blair J.A.”
“G. J. Epstein J.A.”