R. v. B.S.A., 2013 BCSC 75

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. B.S.A., 2013 BCSC 75 Date: 20130118 Docket: 3678-1 Registry: Courtenay Regina v. B.S.A. There is a ban on the publication of the name of the accused pursuant to

section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , S.C. 2002, c. 1 Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel Oral Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Crown: G. Bains Counsel for the Accused: M.T. Mulligan Place and Date of Hearing: Courtenay, B.C. November 26-28, 2012 Place and Date of Judgment: Courtenay, B.C. January 18, 2013 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On August 1, 2012, I convicted B.S.A. of the second degree murder of James Denton.

The circumstances of the offence are set out in the Reasons for Judgment which are indexed at 2012 BCSC 1167 (“the Reasons”). [ 2 ] At the time of the offence, B.S.A. was three months short of his 17th birthday. At the sentencing hearing the Crown applied, pursuant to s. 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , S.C. 2002, c. 1 (the “ YCJA ”) that B.S.A. be sentenced as an adult. B.S.A. opposes the application and argues that he should receive a youth sentence. EVIDENCE AT HEARING [ 3 ] The only witnesses at the hearing were Mr. Denton’s mother, father and uncle, who each read victim impact statements.

The remaining evidence consists of a pre-sentence report prepared by Mr. Ruston, a psychiatric report prepared by Dr. Waddell, a psycho- social history report prepared by Ms. Jarvinen, 13 additional victim impact statements and 20 letters of reference for B.S.A. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK [ 4 ] As B.S.A.was under 18 at the time of the offence, he must be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of the YCJA . The parties are in agreement that the recent amendments to the YCJA that came into force on October 23, 2012 do not apply retrospectively to these proceedings.

Accordingly, I cannot take into account the principles of denunciation and deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence: R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N. , 2006 SCC 27 , [2006] 1 S.C.R. 941. [ 5 ]

Section 72 of the YCJA sets out the factors that must be considered in determining whether or not an adult sentence should be imposed. The relevant portions of that

section read as follows: 72.

(1) In making its decision on an application heard in accordance with

section 71, the youth justice court shall consider the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, and the age, maturity, character, background and previous record of the young person and any other factors that the court considers relevant, and (

a) if it is of the opinion that a youth sentence imposed in accordance with the purpose and principles set out in subparagraph 3(1)(b)(ii) and

section 38 would have sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour, it shall order that the young person is not liable to an adult sentence and that a youth sentence must be imposed; and (

b) if it is of the opinion that a youth sentence imposed in accordance with the purpose and principles set out in subparagraph 3(1)(b)(ii) and

section 38 would not have sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour, it shall order that an adult sentence be imposed.

...

(3) In making its decision, the youth justice court shall consider a pre-sentence report. [ 6 ] Section 72(1) makes specific reference to section 3(1) (b)(ii) and

section 38 of the YCJA . Those sections read as follows: 3

(1) The following principles apply in this Act: ... (

b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and emphasize the following: ... (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity, ... 38.

(1) The purpose of sentencing under

section 42 (youth sentences) is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.

(2) A youth justice court that imposes a youth sentence on a young person shall determine the sentence in accordance with the principles set out in

section 3 and the following principles: o (

a) the sentence must not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would be appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances; o (

b) the sentence must be similar to the sentences imposed in the region on similar young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances; o (

c) the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence; o (

d) all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons; and o (

e) subject to paragraph ( c ), the sentence must • (

i) be the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1), • (ii) be the one that is most likely to rehabilitate the young person and reintegrate him or her into society, and • (iii) promote a sense of responsibility in the young person, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community; and

(3) In determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account o (

a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence; o (

b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable; o (

c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community; o (

d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence; o (

e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; and o (

f) any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose and principles set out in this section. [ 7 ] The onus is on the Crown to satisfy the court that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold B.S.A. accountable for his offending behaviour: R. v.

B. (D.), 2008 SCC 25 , [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3. [ 8 ] Pursuant to s. 72(1) of the YCJA , the court, in deciding whether to impose an adult sentence, must consider (1) the seriousness and circumstances of the offence; (2) the age, maturity, character, background and previous record of the young person; and (3) any other factor that the court considers relevant. With these factors in mind, if the court is then of the opinion that a youth sentence “would have sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour” then the court must impose a youth sentence.

If the court is of the opinion that a youth sentence would not have that effect, then an adult sentence is to be imposed. [ 9 ] Accountability is the central feature of the decision whether to impose an adult sentence. [ 10 ] In R. v. A.O. , 2007 ONCA 144 ; 84 O.R. (3d) 561, the Court discussed accountability at paras. 39-52. They said in part as follows:

42 The combined effect of ss. 72, 3 and 38 is to identify accountability as the purpose that the youth court judge must consider whendeciding an application to impose an adult sentence on a young person. Accountability is achieved through the imposition of meaningfulconsequences for the offender and sanctions that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The purpose ofaccountability in this context would seem to exclude accountability to society in any larger sense or any notion of deterrence. 43 This view of accountability is consistent with the "offender-centric" nature of a youth sentencing decision identified by theSupreme Court of Canada in R. v. P.(B.W.); R. v. N.(B.V.) (2006), 2006 SCC 27 , 209 C.C.C. (3d) 97. In that case, the courtheld that general deterrence is not a factor in youth sentencing.

Speaking for the court at para. 33, Charron J. said the following: In the same way, when the statute speaks of "accountability" or requires that "meaningful consequences" be imposed, the languageexpressly targets the young offender before the court: "ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences" (s. 3(1)(a)(iii)); "accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity" (s. 3(1)(b)(ii));"be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development" (s. 3(1)(c)(iii)).

Parliament has made itequally clear in the French version that these principles are offender-centric and not aimed at the general public[.] [Emphasis in original.] ... 46 In our view, accountability in this context is the equivalent of the adult sentencing principle of retribution as explained by LamerC.J.C. in R. v.

M. (C.A.) (1996), (SCC), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 327 (S.C.C.) at paras. 80 and 81: Retribution in a criminal context, by contrast, represents an objective, reasoned and measured determination of an appropriatepunishment which properly reflects the moral culpability of the offender, having regard to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, theconsequential harm caused by the offender, and the normative character of the offender's conduct. Furthermore, unlike vengeance,retribution incor-porates a principle of restraint; retribution requires the imposition of a just and appropriate punishment, and nothingmore. ...

Retribution, as well, should be conceptually distinguished from its legitimate sibling, denunciation. Retribution requires that a judicialsentence properly reflect the moral blame-worthiness of that particular offender. The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentenceshould also communicate society's condemnation of that particular offender's conduct.

In short, a sentence with a denunciatory elementrepresents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code ofvalues as enshrined within our substantive criminal law. [Underlining in original, italics added.] 47 In our view, for a sentence to hold a young offender accountable in the sense of being meaningful it must reflect, as does aretributive sentence, "the moral culpability of the offender, having regard to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, the consequentialharm caused by the offender, and the normative character of the offender's conduct". [Underlining omitted.] We see no other rationalway for measuring account-ability. [11] The principle issue for determination is whether the duration of any youth sentence that might be imposed would be ofsufficient length to hold B.S.A. accountable for his offending behaviour.

Section 42(2)(

q) of the YCJA provides that the maximumsentence that can be imposed on a young person on a conviction for second degree murder is seven years, comprised of a period ofcustody not to exceed four years, followed by a placement in the community under conditional supervision for up to three additionalyears. If sentenced as an adult, the penalty for second degree murder is life in prison with parole eligibility set at seven years: s. 745.1(c)of the Criminal Code. [12] B.S.A. was 16 when he murdered Mr. Denton. He has been in custody since his arrest on July 23, 2011. Although s. 38(3)(

d) ofthe YCJA requires the court to take into account the time spent in detention as a result of the offence, this does not preclude theimposition of the maximum sentence set out in the YCJA: R. v. R.R.J., 2009 BCCA 580 at para. 48. [13] If B.S.A. is sentenced to the maximum youth sentence he would not be released from custody until January 2017. By that timehe would have been incarcerated for almost five and one-half years. He would then be subject to conditional supervision for a furtherthree years.

He would not be free of all forms of supervision until January 2020 when he would be 25 years old. [14] If he is sentenced as an adult, he will be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for seven years. Byoperation of s. 746 of the Criminal Code, he will be eligible for full parole in July 2018. By operation of s. 746.1(3)(

a) of the CriminalCode, he will be eligible for day parole as early as February 2017. He would be subject to supervision on parole for the rest of his life. Ifhe breached the terms of his parole he could be returned to prison. [15] From the point of view of incarceration, there may be little difference in the actual time B.S.A. spends in jail regardless ofwhether he is sentenced as a youth or as an adult.

The most significant difference between the two sentences is in the case of an adultsentence B.S.A. would be reintegrated into the community once he has demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation, not as in the case of ayouth sentence, by the passage of time alone. As well, in the case of an adult sentence, supervision in the community would continue forlife at a level determined appropriate by the parole authorities, not, as in the case of a youth sentence, for a finite period. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [16] The Crown submits that an adult sentence should be imposed.

It suggests that anything less will not hold B.S.A. accountable forhis actions. The Crown emphasizes the seriousness of the offence. It submits that B.S.A. has not taken responsibility for the offence orexpressed genuine remorse. It suggests that his acceptance of responsibility and expressions of remorse are a direct result of thepredicament he finds himself in and are a transparent attempt to mitigate the consequences of his actions.

It suggests given hisbackground and character it is likely that B.S.A. will reoffend and that only an adult sentence is capable of ensuring B.S.A.’srehabilitation and achieving protection of the public.

[17] The defence submits a youth sentence will hold B.S.A. accountable. While acknowledging that the court could give some creditfor time served, counsel did not strenuously suggest that the maximum youth sentence was inappropriate. Indeed, one of his majorarguments in favour of a youth sentence was that the maximum youth sentence would lead to almost the same amount of incarceration asan adult sentence. Counsel notes that if the maximum youth sentence is imposed B.S.A. will remain under supervision until past his 25thbirthday.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS [18] Before I continue, I want to say something to the family of James Denton. [19] I have read each of the victim impact statements. I recognize the enormous loss that James’ death has visited upon your familyand friends. James was everything a parent would want as a son, as a brother and as a friend. James’ parents and uncle spoke in verypersonal and moving terms about the impact that these events have had, and continue to have on all of you.

There are no words that canproperly capture the loss that you have suffered. [20] From everything I have heard and read, James was a loving and respectful son, a wonderful brother, and a valued friend tomany. He was a good man with a bright future ahead of him. That future is no more and you are left to ponder what might have been. Tothe degree that it is possible for any stranger to do so, I understand and sympathize with the loss you have experienced, and the pain,sorrow and anger that you feel.

You must realize, however, that whatever decision I make respecting B.S.A. will not change the realitythat is now your life. It will not serve to remove the loss you have experienced or lessen the sadness that you feel. While the justicesystem has a role to play in addressing the damage that has been caused, it is but a narrow and limited role. Nothing the justice systemcan do or might ever do, could ever possibly right such a terrible wrong.

No system of laws could possibly achieve such a result. [21] What the law requires me to do is to try to reach a fair and just conclusion based on the requirements laid down by Parliamentas interpreted by our appellate courts. It is a difficult task at any time but is especially difficult in the circumstances that presentthemselves here. Nevertheless, if I am to properly discharge my duties, it is important that I approach my task objectively and withreason, not emotion.

LEGISLATIVE CRITERIA [22] To answer the question of whether the Crown has established that B.S.A. cannot be held accountable for his crime by a youthsentence I must consider and apply the various criteria the legislature has mandated be taken into account in determining whether a youthsentence is appropriate. It is to those criteria I now turn. 1. Seriousness of the Offence [23] B.S.A. has been convicted of second degree murder. With the exception of first degree murder, it is the most serious offenceagainst a person in the Criminal Code.

The seriousness of the offence, however, does not determine in itself whether a youth or adultsentence should be imposed. [24] In the course of their submissions, counsel referred me to 11 cases in which the court had to determine the appropriate sentencefor a youth convicted of murder. In five of those cases an adult sentence was imposed. In six cases the court imposed a youth sentence. Inthis regard, I adopt the comments of Nordheimer J. in R. v. J.S.R., (ON SC), 2009 O.J. No. 1662 (S.C.J.) at para. 41: Returning to the YCJA itself, I do not find that the provisions of

section 38, perhaps because of their generality, are of particularassistance in trying to discern what offending behaviour is properly accounted for by a youth sentence and what offending behaviourrequires the imposition of an adult sentence. This is particularly so, I would add, when one is dealing with the most serious of criminaloffences, namely, murder. I refer again to the statement from the Justice Department's explanatory material where it is suggested thatadult sentences should only be imposed where the conduct is so severe and the youth's responsibility for it so extensive.

To some, allcases of murder would, by definition, likely fall within those parameters. However, it is clear that the seriousness of the offence is not, byitself, sufficient to invoke an adult sentence. This conclusion can be drawn from the simple fact that the YCJA prescribes penalties forthe offence of murder, as I have mentioned. In other words, Parliament has clearly said that there are cases of murder where theprescribed youth sentence will be sufficient to hold the young person accountable without the need for recourse to the adult sentencingregime.

The difficult question, and one that is not answered by the legislation, is which cases of murder properly fall under the youthsentencing regime and which require an adult sentence. 2. Circumstances of the Offence [25] The circumstances of the offence are fully described in the Reasons and need not be repeated here in detail. B.S.A. andMr. Denton were strangers to each other. They were both parts of larger groups that became involved in a confrontation after a rockconcert. B.S.A. had in his possession a knife; Mr. Denton was unarmed. In the course of the altercation, B.S.A. twice stabbedMr.

Denton causing his death. 3. Age, Maturity, Character, Background and Previous Record [26] B.S.A. was born in October 1994. At the time of the murder, he was three months short of his 17th birthday. He is now 18 yearsold. He has been in custody since he was arrested on July 23, 2011, about 18 months ago. Evidence of his maturity, character andbackground come from Mr. Rushton’s pre-sentence report and Dr. Waddell’s psychiatric report. [27] The relationship between B.S.A.’s parents was volatile. His father abused drugs and alcohol. B.S.A. witnessed incidents ofverbal and possibly physical abuse between his parents.

His parents separated in 2004. B.S.A. thereafter lived with his mother andyounger brother. [28] Both parents are now in new relationships. At the time of the incident, B.S.A. was living with his mother, new stepfather and

younger brother. He has been close to and spent considerable time with both his maternal and paternal grandparents. [ 29 ] B.S.A. attended school in the Courtenay/Comox area. He appears to have done well at school and was several times on the honour roll. At school, there were some disciplinary problems. He was suspended from school for skipping class and smoking marijuana. He at times could be stubborn and argumentative with teachers and there were incidences when he defied their authority. While attending school, he was involved in several fights, but none appears to have been overly serious.

School was important to him and he worked hard at maintaining good grades. His former vice principal described him as a solid academic student. [ 30 ] B.S.A. obtained employment at a local supermarket in August 2010 and worked there up until his arrest. At the time of his arrest, he was earning up to $9.30/hour and would work after school and weekends averaging three to five shifts a week. Earnings from his employment went towards a vehicle purchase.

A supervisor described him as a good worker who listened to instructions and does not recall any difficulties during the course of his employment. [ 31 ] Growing up, B.S.A. played several sports including baseball, football, soccer and basketball. He played organized hockey for approximately 10 years. He often went camping, hunting and fishing with his grandparents. [ 32 ] B.S.A. began experimenting with drugs when he was 13 or 14 years old and for approximately two years prior to the offence he was using marijuana on an almost daily basis.

B.S.A. first consumed alcohol when he was 12 years old and reports periodic use until the summer of 2010 when his use began to escalate. There were incidents of excessive use when he and his friends attended parties and gatherings. On several occasions in the months prior to the offence, the police were involved in incidents in which B.S.A. was abusing alcohol. [ 33 ] While B.S.A. had some contact with the police, he was never charged with any offence. He has no criminal record.

During the course of his incarceration at the Victoria Youth Custody Services (“VYCS”) he has been polite, cooperative and follows staff directions. He is reported to be a positive influence on his peers and has maintained positive relationships with staff. While at the VYCS, he has participated in school, and numerous programs including drug and alcohol counselling, alternatives to violence, and working with youth support counsellors. He is reported to be respectful and insightful and he participates fully in programs and focuses on the task at hand.

While in custody, B.S.A. has completed his grade 12 requirements and has been accepted for admission into the local community college. [ 34 ] B.S.A. has acknowledged his difficulty with alcohol. He has been attending the Alcoholics Anonymous program at VYCS. 4. Other Factors [ 35 ] B.S.A. expressed to Mr. Rushton, Dr. Waddell and to the Court, remorse for his actions. He told Mr. Rushton he was sorry for his actions and acknowledged that saying sorry will never be enough. In his statement to the Court, he said “I know I have made a terrible mistake that I can never take back”.

He indicated that he hoped to become a youth probation officer. In that regard, he said: The confusing feelings of depression, frustration, grief, shock and denial, pain and guilt, reflection, loneliness and acceptance has not only changed me but taught me many things about life that I want to share with other youth.

He further said: I know I have to pay for what I did and I do take full responsibility for the tragedy that happened on July 23, 2011 and I am willing to do all the time I am given with good behaviour and to continue bettering myself by going to school and completing programs. [ 36 ] B.S.A. prepared a letter for the Denton family in which he expressed his regret for what had occurred. [ 37 ] Crown counsel submits that the apology rings hollow and suggests it is a tactic to try to reduce his sentence.

While I understand those sentiments, I find that B.S.A.’s remorse is genuine and he truly does regret what he did and understands the damage he has caused. PSYCHIATRIC REPORT [ 38 ] Dr. Waddell prepared the psychiatric report. She was assisted by Dr. Bezeau, a registered psychologist, and Ms. Jarvinen, a psychiatric social worker. In an addendum to her report, she indicated that that the findings and recommendations set out in her report reflected the opinion of the entire team. [ 39 ] Dr.

Waddell indicated that B.S.A. presented as a cooperative but anxious youth who accepted responsibility for his actions on the night of the offence. She noted that his expressions of remorse appeared genuine. [ 40 ] Based on testing conducted by Dr. Bezeau, Dr. Waddell opined that B.S.A.’s overall cognitive abilities were very low and she placed him in the “borderline” range of intellectual functioning. In what she describes as a “provisional psychiatric diagnosis”, she opines that he suffers from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

She indicates that his exposure to intimate partner violence perpetrated by his father against his mother was a form of emotional abuse and may be the root cause of his behavioral problems at school and his substance abuse as an adolescent. She also opines that the emotional abuse may have set the stage for B.S.A. to develop PTSD following an assault he suffered in the summer of 2010. [ 41 ] Dr. Waddell opines that B.S.A.’s risk of re-offending is low.

In that regard, she notes that he has not exhibited serious and persistent patterns of antisocial behavior; his positive involvement in sports and schoolwork; and his willingness and capacity to express remorse and take responsibility for the offence. [ 42 ] Dr. Waddell strongly recommends that B.S.A. receive a youth sentence due to his specialized treatment needs, his good rehabilitation progress and due to the much greater harm for both him and society should he go to adult custody. She recommends that he remain in youth custody in Victoria.

She makes specific recommendations for a comprehensive and coordinated treatment plan.

[ 43 ] I should note that I have some difficulties with Dr. Waddell’s suggestion that B.S.A.’s intellectual abilities are in the borderline range. That conclusion is not consistent with his actual academic achievement. His school records indicate he was generally successful at school and was often on the honour roll. Several of the letters written in support of B.S.A. commented on his intellectual abilities. [ 44 ] It is also somewhat troubling that Dr.

Waddell based her recommendations, at least in part, on B.S.A.’s version of the circumstances leading up to the murder and appears to have given no consideration to the findings of fact I made in the Reasons. In that regard, I note that in the Reasons I did not accept much of what Dr. Waddell appears to rely on. [ 45 ] Dr. Waddell, however, was not cross-examined. Whether her opinions and conclusions would have changed if other facts were presented to her is a matter of speculation. No other psychiatric evidence was led.

Absent cross-examination or other evidence challenging her conclusions, her report, notwithstanding my concerns, is entitled to some weight in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. I do note that the onus on this application is on the Crown and it was the Crown who chose not to cross-examine. THE AUTHORITIES [ 46 ] Counsel cited some 35 different authorities, including 11 murder cases, in which the court has had to determine whether a youth should be sentenced as an adult.

While the cases make clear that sentencing under the YCJA is offender-centric and each case must be decided on its own individual circumstance, certain themes emerged from the authorities. Cases that involved factors such as premeditation, prior criminal records, moderate or high risk of recidivism, lack of remorse and poor rehabilitation prospects were more likely to lead to an adult sentence being imposed. None of those factors are present in this case. DISCUSSION [ 47 ] Until July 23, 2011, there was no reason to believe that B.S.A. would not become a useful and contributing member of society.

He did well at school. He had been actively involved in sports. He had a part-time job. Although he had some discipline issues at school and had begun to abuse drugs and alcohol, such difficulties are not unusual in a young person. He had no criminal record and had never been charged with a criminal offence. [ 48 ] The murder was not premeditated or planned. B.S.A. did not attend the rock concert with the intention of killing James Denton. A series of individual events brought the two together with tragic consequences. [ 49 ] As a result of his actions on July 23, 2011, he has now been incarcerated for 18 months.

If sentenced to the maximum youth sentence, he will remain incarcerated for a further four years and will then be subject to three further years of supervision. He will then be 25 years old. As noted, regardless of whether B.S.A. is given a youth or adult sentence, his time of actual incarceration will be similar. [ 50 ] Youth sentencing is offender-centric. Taking into account the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, B.S.A.’s age, maturity, character and background, his lack of any criminal record, the recommendations of Dr.

Waddell, his expressed remorse and his prospects for rehabilitation, I am of the opinion that the maximum youth sentence will have sufficient length to hold B.S.A. accountable for his behaviour. The circumstances do not warrant the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. The evidence does not suggest that lifetime supervision on parole is required to protect the public. [ 51 ] B.S.A., would you please stand? [ 52 ] What you did was incredibly stupid, abhorrent and horrifying. You have caused lasting pain to the Denton family and James’ many friends.

What you did can never be undone. [ 53 ] The issue before me, however, is whether or not a youth sentence will have sufficient length to hold you accountable for your offending behaviour. A maximum youth sentence will lead to your incarceration for five and one-half years plus three further years of conditional release. Given the circumstances of the offence, your history and circumstances and the various other factors I have mentioned herein, I find that a youth sentence will have sufficient length to hold you accountable for your behaviour.

In order to achieve the desired goals of rehabilitation and reintegration, I find that the maximum allowable youth sentence must be imposed from today’s date. For that reason, I am not going to give credit for the pre-sentence custody which you have served. The sentence will comprise committal to custody for four years followed by three years to be served by placement under conditional supervision to be served in the community.

There will also be the following orders: 1. an order pursuant to s. 51(1) of the YCJA prohibiting B.S.A. for 10 years from possessing any firearm and prohibiting him for life from possessing any crossbow, prohibited weapon, restrictive weapon, prohibitive device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance; 2. an order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of a DNA sample; 3. pursuant to s. 42(9) of the YCJA , there is a determination that these offences are serious, violent offences and the indictment will be endorsed accordingly; and 4. the publication ban will remain in effect. [ 54 ] I would like to thank both counsel for their thorough written and oral submissions and their conduct throughout this entire matter. “R.B.T.

Goepel J.” ________________________________________ The Honourable Mr. Justice Richard B.T. Goepel