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(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or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. J.C., 2014 ONCA 452
DATE: 20140609
DOCKET: C58271
Doherty, Tulloch and Benotto JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Jason C.
(A Young Person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act)
Appellant
Craig Penney, for the appellant
Michael Fawcett, for the respondent
Heard: June 6, 2014
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice J.R. Morgan, of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Justice Court), sitting without a jury, on January 28, 2014.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The seriousness of the offence and the horrible, but hardly unexpected, consequences for the victim demanded incarceration as the only penalty capable of reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s degree of responsibility. The length of the sentence imposed was well within the appropriate range.
[2] The appeal is dismissed.