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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
CITATION: R. v. G.I., 2012 ONCA 188
DATE: 20120326
DOCKET: C52907
Rosenberg, Armstrong and Blair JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
and
G. I.
Appellant
Counsel: Apple Newton-Smith, for the appellant David Lepofsky, for the respondent
Heard and endorsed: March 21, 2012
On appeal from the conviction entered on August 30, 2010 and the sentence imposed on October 18, 2010 by Justice Gerald S. Lapkin of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Court), sitting without a jury.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The trial judge did not misapprehend the circumstantial evidence that served to identify the appellant as one of the perpetrators. The appellant’s clothing, his appearance and the appearance of the other two did match that of the 3 youths coming out of and then going back into the subway station during the time period which bracketed the time when the victim left the station and was robbed.
[2] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed.
[3] We are also of the view that the sentence appeal must be dismissed. The trial judge made no error in principle. He was obviously not bound by the recommendation of the probation officer and it was for him to decide what weight to put on the appellant’s poor behaviour while in pre-trial custody.
[4] Accordingly, while leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.