2014 QCCQ 11417, 2014 QCCQ 11417

LSJPA – 1459 2014 QCCQ 11417 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-03-054287-123 525-03-054823-133 525-03-054959-135 DATE: May 16, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE: GUY LECOMPTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN v.

 X Born on […], 2000 ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING DECISION ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: No person shall publish the name of a young person or a child or any information that may identify him as having been dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act , or as being a victim or witness in connection with an offence alleged to have been committed by a young person, except by judicial order.

Every person who contravenes these dispositions is liable to prosecution (sections 75, 110 (1), 111 (1) and 138 Y.C.J.A.). [ 1 ] On September 5, 2013, subsequent to guilty pleas, the young person was convicted on the following counts: Record 525-03-054287-123 1. On or about August 1, 2012, in Town A, District of Town A, did steal from a Maxi store, property of a value not exceeding $5000.00, committing thereby the offence punishable on

summary conviction provided in

section 334 ( b )(ii) of the Criminal Code . Record 525-03-054823-133 He was convicted on the following amended first count: 1. On or about January 21 st , 2013, in Town A, District of Town A, did, by criminal negligence, cause the death of A by using a firearm, committing thereby the indictable office provided in

section 220

a) of the Criminal Code . The Court acquitted him on a count of manslaughter and ordered the conditional suspension of proceedings on the other counts. Record 525-03-054959-135 1. On or about January 2, 2013, in Town A, district of Town A, did rob B, using a prohibited firearm, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 344(1)

a) of the Criminal code . The Court ordered a conditional suspension of proceedings on the other counts. [ 2 ] Further to the pleas, the Crown submitted evidence on aggravating facts, per the standard of proof in Gardiner . The Court will come back to this later. [ 3 ] The young person was detained following his arrest on January 21, 2013. A first release hearing was held in March, April and June 2013, and, on June 6, the Court ordered his interim custody. [ 4 ] On October 23, 2013, further to his motion for release following his guilty plea, the Court maintained the young person's detention

in custody. [ 5 ] On December 18, 2013, in light of the postponement of the sentencing hearings pending receipt of the expert psychiatric and psychological reports, and at the young person's request, the Court placed him in the care of D, a distant relative, under

section 31 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). [ 6 ] The sentencing hearings were held on February 12 and 13, and March 5, 2014. FACTS [ 7 ] Record 525-03-054287-123 involves an offence of shoplifting perpetrated in a grocery store on August 1, 2012. The young person and his accomplice of full age, C, stole headphones offered as gifts in beer cases. The video evidence shows that the young person stood watch while his accomplice searched the beer cases. The offence is punishable on

summary conviction. The stolen goods were recovered immediately. [ 8 ] In record 525-03-054959-136, the accused and an accomplice, a minor, went in the evening to a parking lot next to a service station in the west end of A town. The accused used, without authorization, the courtesy vehicle that had been lent to his mother by a garage. He also supplied his accomplice with a 9-millimetre Beretta pistol he had in his possession, as will be explained later. The weapon was loaded. [ 9 ] They walked to a bus shelter near the service station and the accomplice entered the establishment while the accused waited outside.

The accomplice pointed the loaded and armed pistol at the clerk and demanded the contents of the cash register. He came out with $95.00, and the two of them returned to the car. [ 10 ] The accomplice handed the money over to the accused, who gave him his share.

Then they joined some friends and bought some marijuana. [ 11 ] In record 525-03-054823-133, the accused was in his room at home with his brother and a friend, C, his accomplice during the shoplifting at Maxi on August 1, 2012. [ 12 ] As shown by the evidence submitted to the Court, which was not contradicted, F, the victim and brother of the accused, was sitting at the head of the bed. The accused was standing next to the bed, and C was leaning on a dresser, playing with his cellphone. [ 13 ] C started playing with some matches.

He lit them and held them as long as possible before flicking them one at a time into a paper bag right next to the accused. The accused became tired of this and asked C to stop. A discussion ensued between the two and, at some point, the accused went to look for something in the dresser. He then went to the closet, where he took out a black case that he put on the bed. [ 14 ] The accused took a pistol out of the case and released the safety lever. He took the loaded magazine and inserted it into the pistol.

He armed the pistol, thereby chambering a cartridge. [ 15 ] He then removed the magazine and rearmed the pistol, ejecting the chambered cartridge. He bent toward the floor, but C was unable to say whether or not he picked up the ejected cartridge. However, he saw the accused rearm the pistol. [ 16 ] Since C had changed position, the accused was facing him. C gently moved him aside by taking him by the arms. He then returned to his initial position by the dresser and continued playing with his cellphone. [ 17 ] Moments later, while playing with his phone, he heard a shot.

Looking up, he saw the accused's brother lying on the bed. The accused was in a state of panic, yelling that he had killed his brother. [ 18 ] C went to get his coat because he wanted to leave, then went back into the room to get his telephone. Once outside, he called his girlfriend. It was 5:25:06 p.m. The call lasted 553 seconds. [ 19 ] The evidence shows that, meanwhile, the accused tried to call C three times. The accused's mother called the accused at 5:28 p.m., then several times in the minutes that followed.

He told his mother what happened, and she drove home. [ 20 ] At 5:37 p.m., the accused called 911. [ 21 ] The evidence shows that the bullet penetrated the victim's head above the right temple, lodging itself below the left ear. The bullet was purportedly shot from a distance of 30 to 60 centimetres. [ 22 ] The weapon in question, a 9-millimetre Beretta pistol, belonged to the accused's maternal grandfather, who had died a few years previously. It was among the hunting weapons owned by the grandfather.

The accused and his brother had asked the grandmother to let them have the weapons as souvenirs of their grandfather. [ 23 ] In December 2012, the grandmother acquiesced and transferred the weapons in their cases to the home of the accused's mother. Later, she changed her mind and took back the weapons, pressured to do so by her son and one of her daughters.

The accused allegedly found the Beretta in one of the hunting weapon cases, and hid it in his bedroom closet. [ 24 ] When entering the guilty plea on this count, on September 5, 2013, the accused's attorney mentioned that, at the time the weapon was fired, the accused thought the safety lever was engaged. He had no intention whatsoever of injuring his brother. In addition, there is nothing in the evidence that points to any animosity between the two brothers. They got along well. THE ACCUSED'S LIFESTYLE

[ 25 ] Per the standard of proof in Gardiner , the Crown prosecutor submitted very detailed evidence of the accused's lifestyle during the months preceding the offences in January 2013. [ 26 ] Here is what I wrote on the subject in my judgment on a motion for release, dated October 25, 2013: [22] . . .

Thanks to the contents of his cell phone and the cell phone of witness C, who was also his accomplice in the shoplifting incident, the investigator for the police was able to reconstruct his phone conversations, the incoming and outgoing text messages, the pictures sent and received as well as his whereabouts and times at which he was using his phone.

In addition, different persons, members of his family, school authorities, the teenagers he frequented and a person working for community services painted very different pictures of the defendant. [23] The contents of his cell phone and the statements of the youths he frequented reveal a young 12-year-old who used drugs and alcohol often and on a regular basis.

He had a pistol in his possession and would not hesitate to carry the weapon on him or to show it to friends when they would come to his house. [24] In addition to this weapon, he also owned an air pistol, an air rifle and a paint gun. [25] He often borrowed his mother's car late at night, without her permission, while she was asleep, to go and see friends and use drugs and alcohol. [26] His fingerprints were found on the basement window of his grandmother's house, a window opening on the room where the hunting weapons and ammunitions of his grandfather were stored in a cabinet.

His fingerprints were also found on the cabinet. Police officers also found that a rag had been put on the motion detector installed in this room. Moreover, his uncle and aunt had once caught him in the house while his grandmother was on vacation. He was accompanied by his brother and C [ 27 ] While he was taking his mother's car out of the garage, pushing it with a friend to avoid making noise, he would have dented the driver side door.

He quickly pushed the car back into the garage and a complaint for attempted car theft was made to the police. [ 28 ] The language and expressions used in the phone conversations and text messages reveal a very brazen youth for his age.

The court finds the portrait made of this 12-year-old young person to be very disconcerting and worrisome, more akin to the profile of an older young offender. [ 29 ] On the other hand, the mother and other family members, as well as school authorities, painted a very different picture of him and described him as a reasonably successful 12-year-old student, without specific problems and not the cause of any concern from the people in his immediate surroundings. [ 30 ] In her testimony at the bail hearing held last spring, the mother refused to believe that her son was using drugs and alcohol, and that he would take her car without her permission.

Neither did she believe that he had caused the death of his brother, even though the defendant had admitted this. PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS [27] A first psychiatric assessment of the accused was done by Dr. Dominique Bourget, psychiatrist. Her report, dated March 27, 2013, was filed in the record for the purposes of the first release hearing. [28] The report dealt mainly with the risk the young person might present if he were released into the community at that time. [29] The psychiatrist’s diagnosis, as per DSM-IV-TR, was the following: AXIS I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

AXIS II: No personality disorder.

AXIS III: No physical illness contributory. AXIS IV: Psychosocial stressors currently include current legal charges, not permitted to reside at home with family and grief from his brother's death. AXIS V: Global assessment of functioning (GAF): 63 [Some mild symptoms (depressed mood, flashbacks) but generally functions well]. [30] She concluded as follows: In conclusion, we did not identify any significant risk factor at this time that might suggest it would be unsafe to release this young person in the community. Ideally he should reside with a family member.

Given the particular circumstances, including his young age, we believe that he could be released safely to the care of his relatives and we would also make the following recommendations: – That he be subject to a condition not to associate with delinquent peers; – That he be subject to a condition not to use substances for a recreational purpose (there were some controversial informations as to whether this young man has been using — the whole, there is no evidence of such use). [ 31 ] The Court must add that the psychiatrist did not have access to the whole of the evidence subsequently submitted, which invalidated some of the information the accused had given her. [ 32 ] A second expert psychiatric assessment was done at Institut Philippe-Pinel by Dr.

Martin Gignac, psychiatrist, in December 2013. His initial report, dated December 3, 2013, was filed in the record. In addition, Dr. Gignac testified twice. [ 33 ] A psychological assessment report was prepared at the request of Dr. Gignac. The report, dated February 10, 2014 and signed by Tiziana Costi, psychologist, was also filed in the record. [ 34 ] In his psychiatric assessment, Dr. Gignac described the accused as a boy who looks older than his age, with coherent and well- structured thinking.

However, he tended to not take responsibility for his alleged actions, and his judgment and self-criticism appeared to be superficial. [ 35 ] Dr. Gignac's main diagnosis was a behavioural disorder starting in adolescence. He stressed that the boy's lying was an issue that warranted therapy and close follow-up. Psychological care also seemed important to help him acknowledge the role he played in the alleged offences, as well as his tendency to not take responsibility and to blame others. [ 36 ] Dr. Gignac did not believe that the mother was able to supervise her son.

He believed that that approach was not realistic. According to him, the mother was not able to provide the same degree of supervision as secure custody. Work had to begin at the family level in order to better define everyone’s role when a return home was contemplated. Lastly, he recommended specific assistance to help the young person refrain from using illicit substances. [ 37 ] The psychological assessment of February 10, 2014 concluded that it was highly probable that the young person presented with other difficulties and impulsiveness.

The psychologist emphasized that he was insecure and immature, that he wanted to appear more mature and independent than he was. There were elements of sadness and guilt. He was high on the scale of depression and this was possibly linked to trauma-related stress. He needed to raise his self-esteem and to make changes. [ 38 ] The psychologist further emphasized that the accused had a history of wrongdoings that should not be taken lightly, for fear of developing further behavioural disorders.

Relationships with negative peers, a substance abuse problem, feelings of loneliness and additional difficulties were all factors to be taken seriously in treating the young person. The accused and his family needed structured therapy. Lastly, he needed to assume responsibility for his share of his behaviour problems, and to continue his treatment on a regular basis. A neutral environment was recommended. [ 39 ] In his Court testimony on February 12, 2014, Dr.

Martin Gignac insisted on the need to place the young person in a neutral envrironment, it being his belief that the mother was still too emotionally involved and would not be able to provide her son with firm supervision. He would benefit from another two years of intense follow-up. According to Dr. Gignac, a neutral environment should be able to maintain a certain emotional detachment from the young person, and should be involved in an intervention strategy.

Furthermore, psychological follow-up should be on a weekly basis. [ 40 ] In his addendum to the initial report, dated January 22, 2014, the psychiatrist mentioned that the young person's development in his current living environment with D appeared favourable. According to the psychiatrist, the grieving process was not over yet. Several elements had to be followed up in thereapy. Reintegration with his mother should not take place before work was done on the relationship with both his mother and his father. Reintegration should be implemented gradually.

[ 41 ] Even though the risk of re-offending was low, the young person presented with certain risk factors that required clinical attention. Referral to a specialized substance abuse resource was still required and follow-up could help him open up further. [ 42 ] Lastly, it was important that the father once again play a role in his son’s life. PRE-SENTENCE REPORT [ 43 ] At the time of the alleged offences, the mother had custody of her two sons, respectively 12 and 16 years old. The parents divorced in 2007 and the father remarried in 2011. The two sons visited him on Sundays and certain holidays.

Both the mother and the father maintained regular contact with their son during his temporary detention and have continued to do so since his placement in the care of D. [ 44 ] According to the parents, the two brothers had a close relationship and were good friends. The evidence shows that the accused was often in the company of his brother's friends, who were older than him. [ 45 ] The accused started Secondary I in September 2012.

He was described as having certain academic problems, but no particular behaviour problems. [ 46 ] During his temporary detention, he went to A High School, where no particular problems were noted, but positive aspects were. [ 47 ] Since his placement in the care of D, he has been provided with private home schooling and private tutors for certain subjects. [ 48 ] Before the August 2012 incident, the accused did not have a criminal record. He started psychotherapy shortly after beginning his temporary detention.

That therapy is now on a weekly basis. [ 49 ] In addition, a social worker from the CLSC in D's borough was designated to support the family and the accused for as long as necessary. [ 50 ] The accused also behaved well during his temporary detention at a rehabilitation centre. He participated well in the activities provided, whether sports, cooking, school or other activities.

He was described as a polite young man, who was respectful of, and pleasant with those around him. [ 51 ] His positive behaviour was noted both at the DARA unit and the Northview unit. [ 52 ] The author of the report, [Social Worker 1], mentioned that the accused constantly voiced remorse and regret about his lifestyle before his arrest. He B he wanted to put all that behind him rapidly. She believed that if he involved himself in the assessments and the treatment proposed by Dr. Gignac, and he stayed in Ms.

D's family environment, his rehabilitation would be successful. [ 53 ] Consequently, she recommended that the psychotherapy continue and that Dr. Gignac's recommendations be implemented. She emphasized that, after giving various versions of the events, including about his possession of the Beretta pistol, he ended up admitting that he had found the weapon in a closet at his maternal grandmother's home. She believed that his remorse and repentance were sincere.

He responded well to the supervision provided at the rehabilitation centre and in D's family. [ 54 ] In her report, the representative of the provincial director recommended deferred custody for six (6) months, followed by two (2) years’ probation. [ 55 ] However, that recommendation cannot be taken into account by the Court, given section 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), which provides that a deferred custody youth sentence does not apply to an offence in which a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm. Both the Crown and the defence agree on this.

CROWN PROPOSAL [ 56 ] Taking into account the temporary detention period of eleven (11) months, the prosecutor for the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions recommended a youth sentence of eighteen (18) months’ open custody, followed by probation, also for eighteen (18) months. [ 57 ] She pointed out that the young person is facing a maximum youth sentence of three (3) years’ custody, and given the seriousness of the robbery and criminal negligence causing death offences, he must assume responsibility for his actions and answer for them. [ 58 ] In similar circumstances, an adult could be sentenced to life imprisonment, with minimum sentences of four years’ imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death using a firearm, and five years for robbery using a prohibited firearm to commit the offence. [ 59 ] She added that this case is unique, since the young person was only twelve (12) years old when the offences were committed.

But, because of the aggravating facts submitted as evidence and the dual personality of the young person, who is capable of lying and manipulation, he needs a longer supervision period in a neutral and very structured environment, something only a rehabilitation centre can provide. [ 60 ] His attraction to weapons, the differing versions he gave, his propensity for blaming his accomplices for his actions and his denigration of them, even after eleven (11) months of custody, show the necessity, in her opinion, of continuing to keep him in the charge of professionals capable of supervising a young person with such problems.

[ 61 ] In addition to the aggravating facts submitted as evidence, she emphasized the young person's participation and degree of responsibility in the two extremely serious offences. The principle of deterrence provided for in section 38(2)(

f) YCJA applies here, given the young person's tendency to blame others for his own actions. [ 62 ] In her opinion, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find jurisprudence applicable to this case, because of the age of the accused and the special circumstances of the offences. The examples submitted range from six (6) months’ deferred custody to a maximum youth sentence of twelve (12) or thirteen (13) months after shorter temporary detention periods than that served by the accused.

In several cases, the accused had criminal records. [ 63 ] The harshest youth sentences submitted were open custody periods of eighteen (18) and twenty (20) months for young persons over 16 convicted of robbery and manslaughter, after fifteen (15) months’ temporary detention. [ 64 ] Lastly, the prosecutor, who commented on the testimony given by Dr. Martin Gignac, argued that this case requires long-term rehabilitation and that it is hard to characterize D's environment as a neutral environment, because Ms.

D does not have the required emotional detachment or objectivity possessed by professionals in a rehabilitation centre.

DEFENCE PROPOSAL [ 65 ] The accused's attorney also stressed the exceptional nature of this case, not only because of the young person's age, but also because the members of the immediate family and even the extended family are very involved in the situation. [ 66 ] Guilt, remorse and regret add to the pain of their bereavement. [ 67 ] She contended that all available sanctions, other than custody, that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered, pursuant to the principle provided for in section 38(2)(

d) YCJA. [ 68 ] She also contended that, in accordance with section 39(2) YCJA, custody is not imposed unless the Court has considered all alternatives to custody raised at the sentencing hearing. [ 69 ] Hence, given the temporary detention period of eleven (11) months already served by the accused, and given the current situation at the home of D, which appears very well-suited to the accused's rehabilitation and community reintegration needs, she did not see the necessity of returning the accused to custody.

That would be a step backwards. [ 70 ] The accused has already served almost one full year of custody out of a maximum detention period of three (3) years. His behaviour was positive and he cooperated with the various professionals involved in the assessments or psychological follow-up. [ 71 ] His accomplices were older than him and may have influenced him to a certain degree. In addition, the evidence shows that the idea of the robbery came from the accomplice.

Furthermore, C, who was of full age, did not call 911 when he saw that the accused's brother had been shot. [ 72 ] In her opinion, it is understandable that a young person of that age might lie to try to exonerate himself or to mitigate his responsibility in such circumstances. The accused's emotional state of mind at the time must also be considered. [ 73 ] He pleaded guilty to the charges and has made progress since his arrest.

The supervision provided by the family of D, the services provided by the psychologist and the CLSC, the assessments at the A town Children’s Hospital and the help he agreed to receive for his drug use, allow him to continue his rehabilitation within the community. [ 74 ] Consequently, she proposed that the accused remain in D's home, with two (2) years’ probation and follow-up on the conditions set forth in the predecision report. ANALYSIS [ 75 ] The Court can but agree that this case, a young person 12 years of age committing such offences, is indeed unique.

Moreover, the victim of the criminal negligence was his own brother. [ 76 ] One need not be a specialist of human behaviour to understand the seriousness of the tragedy and the aftermath of the whole situation for the accused and his family. [ 77 ] The very elaborate evidence submitted by the Crown concerning the accused's lifestyle in the months preceding the last offence leaves no doubt in the Court's mind as to the double life the accused was leading at the time. [ 78 ] Without reiterating the details of that double life, one aspect of the accused's personality was that of a young person who looked older than his years, was a delinquent, regularly used drugs and drank alcohol, and had a particular attraction to firearms.

The other aspect, seen by the adults in his life, was that of a young person of 12, who had no particular problems and was even a conformist. [ 79 ] Nor does the Court doubt that the accused was capable of lying most convincingly, as clearly shown in the video of his questioning by police officers on the evening of his arrest. [ 80 ] His explanations as to the circumstances of his brother's death are vague, being different and shifting.

The Court believes that the accused was very familiar with the operation of a Beretta pistol, which he was capable of handling very carelessly, without regard for the possible consequences of such carelessness. In fact, he handled it as would any young person of 12 who thinks he is an adult and invincible because he has a weapon. [ 81 ] His participation in a robbery using a prohibited firearm also testifies to his lack of concern as to the possible consequences of the use of a firearm in similar circumstances.

[ 82 ] This young person definitely needed to have his problematic behaviour stopped and to be supervised in a far more structured way. [ 83 ] Now, more than fifteen (15) months after his arrest, the Court must determine the youth sentence to be imposed on this young person, who is now barely fourteen (14) years old. [ 84 ] On the one hand, I note all the aggravating facts submitted as evidence concerning his former behaviour, his lies, and his differing versions of the circumstances of the offences. [ 85 ] On the other hand, I accept as mitigating factors the fact that he pleaded guilty to the alleged offences, and the various assessment reports that depict a youth who regrets his actions, and expresses remorse and shame. [ 86 ] I am also taking into consideration the fact that he has already served eleven (11) months’ temporary detention in closed custody. [ 87 ] In addition, his positive behaviour at the two units of the rehabilitation centre where he was placed, his voluntary participation in the various activities proposed, whether they be school, sports or social activities, and his cooperation in the various assessments argue in his favour.

The psychological follow-up in which he has been involved for more than a year, which he agrees to continue, also constitutes a mitigating factor. [ 88 ] Moreover, I accept as a mitigating factor his behaviour, also positive, since being placed in the care of D, and his compliance with the conditions ordered. [ 89 ] Lastly, I must take into account the young age of the accused at the time the offences were committed. As provided for in the principles set forth in

section 3 YCJA, the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and must emphasize, among other things, fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity. [ 90 ] The Court also adheres to Dr.

Martin Gignac’s proposal of proceeding by stages in order to ensure the accused's rehabilitation and social reintegration. [ 91 ] As mentioned by the psychiatrist, it is far too early to consider returning the accused to his mother, who is still very emotionally affected by the situation, which makes it difficult for her to provide the firm and structured supervision her son needs. [ 92 ] There is still much work to be done in this respect.

In his present situation, the father is also unable to take his son in, which he acknowledges. [ 93 ] What solutions are the most likely to foster the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the accused, while ensuring the long- term protection of the public and abiding by the principles of sentencing? [ 94 ] First, the Court considers that a custodial period of almost one year has put a stop to the accused's delinquent actions, and allowed his behaviour and state of mind to be observed.

The reports are positive. [ 95 ] The period elapsed since December 18, 2013, when the accused was placed in the care of D, has shown that the accused behaved well, voluntarily submitted to supervision and monitoring and abided by the conditions set by the Court. [ 96 ] I must add that D's testimony on the structure she implemented to take charge of the accused and the various steps she took with the school and medical authorities was very impressive. Her

schedule of social and sports activities, her organization of private lessons for the accused and her search for a school suited to his needs for the coming year, show that she is highly capable of supervising a young person and that she shoulders that responsibility very conscientiously. I do not believe she is too close emotionally to the accused. Rather, I think she is thoughtful, responsible and capable of imposing a structure and cooperating with the various people involved in the accused's situation. [ 97 ] Such an alternative to custody does not come up often.

In addition, both the accused and his parents agree with it, even though the mother would prefer to have primary custody of her son. [ 98 ] With appropriate conditions, the Court believes that the defence's proposal to oblige the accused to live with D within the framework of a two (2)-year probation order attains the objectives and abides by the sentencing principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act . [ 99 ] This approach also has the advantage of proceeding in stages with the accused's rehabilitation, as proposed by Dr. Martin Gignac. Initially, a custodial sentence was necessary.

For a young person of 12, the custody period of almost one year met the objectives of accountability and deterrence. The second stage will be carried out in a highly organized and structured family environment and will take place over a sufficiently long period of time for the rehabilitation services and therapy, among others, to yield the anticipated results.

The principles of rehabilitation, social reintegration and long-term protection of the public will thus be abided by. [ 100 ] Consequently, the Court considers that the seriousness of the crimes deserve a custody and supervision order. [ 101 ] But CONSIDERING the fact that the accused has been detained in custody prior to being sentenced for a period of nearly eleven (11) months. [ 102 ] CONSIDERING that he has been placed since December the 18 th , 2013, in the care of Mrs. D twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week with specific conditions in application of

section 31 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

[ 103 ] CONSIDERING that it would represent a period of custody and supervision of nearly sixteen (16) months.

THE COURT [ 104 ] In the files 525-03-054823-133 and 525-03-054959-135, on each file to be served concurrently, PLACES the young person in probation for a period of two (2) years with the following conditions: − To keep the peace and be of good behaviour; − To appear before the Youth Justice Court when required by the Court to do so; − To report and be supervised by the Provincial Director; − To notify the clerk of the Youth Justice Court, the Provincial Director or the Youth Worker assigned to his case of any change of address or any change in his place of education; − To reside with Mrs.

D who is willing to provide for your care and maintenance; − For the first twelve (12) months, there will be a curfew from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. unless accompanied by Mrs. D, Mr. E or Mrs.

F or individual designated by the Provincial Director; − Not possess or consume alcohol, narcotics, drugs or other intoxicating substances except in accordance with a medical prescription; − Until otherwise arranged to continue, to participate in home schooling as dispensed by the School Board; − When arranged, to assiduously attend school or a recognized learning institution, except in the case of a written medical authorization, do my work to the satisfaction of the authorities and abide by the regulations of the institution; − To not possess any weapon whatsoever, imitation of a weapon or any other object that may be used as a weapon; − To pursue therapy with a psychologist as long as recommended by the psychologist; − To pursue a family therapy, as recommeded by the Provincial Director; − For the first twelve (12) months, not to use computers or Internet, except for the purpose of school; − For the first twelve months (12), not to own a cellphone; − Not to communicate directly or indirectly or be in the presence of K.D., C.B., M.P.L., S.H.B., F.S., J.R.S., L.M.C., B.D., I.O., T.D., M.R., M.M. and D.L.; − To submit to an assessment for A.D.D. and drug usage and to partake in recommendations made as a result of these assessments; AND [ 105 ] ORDERS the taking of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis according to

section 487.051 of the Criminal Code ; [ 106 ] PROHIBITS , under subsection 51 (1) YCJA, the adolescent from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance during a period of ten (10) years from today. [ 107 ] ORDERS , under paragraph 42 (2) (

j) YCJA, the forfeiture of the objects seized and their destruction (weapon, munitions, cellphone). [ 108 ] In the file 525-03-054287-123, the Court IMPOSES a reprimand. Signed in Town A, on May 16 th , 2014 __________________________________ GUY LECOMPTE J.C.Q. Mtre. Isabel Schurman For the defendant Mtre. Marie-Claude Bourassa

For the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions Date of hearing: February 12 and 13, and March 5, 2014