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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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. S.K., 2011 ONCA 835
DATE: 20111222
DOCKET: C51988
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Rosenberg and Lang JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
S.K.
Appellant
Candice Suter, for the appellant
Emile Carrington, for the respondent
Heard: December 21, 2011
On appeal from the finding of guilt entered on December 4, 2009 and the disposition imposed on April 19, 2010 by Justice James J. Keaney of the Ontario Court of Justice.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
The Conviction Appeal
[1] There are two grounds of appeal.
(1) The identification evidence
[2] The trial judge did not err in his assessment of the identification evidence given by the teller. He was alive to the inherent frailties of that evidence. In any event, the teller’s evidence was only a small feature of the identification evidence. This was an overwhelming case.
(2) The photographs
[3] In our view, defence counsel did agree that the time and date stamps on the school’s photographs could be admitted for their truth without formal proof of their authenticity.
[4] The appeal from conviction is dismissed.
The Sentence Appeal
[5] The trial judge’s characterization of the case was open to him. On that characterization the sentence was reasonable and we see no error in principle.
[6] The sentence appeal is dismissed.