R. v. L.P. Date:, 2012 BCPC 6

Citation: R. v. L.P. Date: 20120111 2012 BCPC 0006 File No: 5078-2-C Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. L.P. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. E. MOSS Counsel for the Crown: Ms. L. Ostry Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. R. Fowler Place of Hearing: North Vancouver, B.C.

Date of Hearing: October 28 and December 19, 2011 Date of Judgment: January 11, 2012 [ 1 ] Submissions were made to the Court by counsel on October 28 and December 19, 2011 and the question of sentencing was reserved to January 11, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4. [ 2 ] The main issue before the Court is to rule on whether or not there should be a custodial or non custodial sentence given to L.P. [ 3 ] L.P., in March 2010, entered pleas of guilty to the offences of; Count 2, aggravated assault on A.C. and Count 3, knowingly threatening L.R., to cause death or bodily harm.

The two offences are contrary to sections 268(2) and 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code . The incidents complained of occurred on October 29, 2010 in West Vancouver, British Columbia. Sentencing initially was scheduled for May 2010. A. Violent Offence Issue [ 4 ] On this question, the Court is guided by s. 39(1)(

a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act . According to that section: A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under

section 42 (youth sentences) unless (

a) the young person has committed a violent offence; [ 5 ] The term “violent offence” is not defined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act . [ 6 ] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts as related by Crown counsel constitute the aggravated assault herein as a serious violent offence contrary to s. 39(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act .

The offence of aggravated assault in the context of the case before this Court involved the accused: (1) intending to cause bodily harm; (2) actually causing bodily harm, and; (3) using a knife in a premeditated fashion to cause that bodily harm by stabbing his victim, four times. The accused’s moral culpability is high. He was 100% at fault. Accordingly the information will be endorsed with the direction that Count 2, aggravated assault, constitutes a violent offence. A jail sentence thus can form part of this sentencing process.

[ 7 ] Count 3 is the offence of knowingly uttering a threat to L.R. to cause death or bodily harm to her. This is also a very serious intentional crime. Both offences were committed in close temporal proximity. B. Sentencing Considerations for L.P . [ 8 ] In determining the appropriate sanction I have considered the following:

(1) The accused’s guilty pleas to both serious offences;

(2) His age, 15 years at the time of the offences.

(3) The fact the accused had no prior criminal record;

(4) The pre-sentence report from May of 2011 with the December 2011 update.

(5) Various psychiatric reports and updates pursuant to s. 34 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , particularly the “risk assessments” contained therein;

(6) The extensive victim impact statements chronicling the physical, emotional and family problems suffered by A.C. and his family (s. 42.9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act );

(7) The legal authorities cited by both counsel;

(8) Submissions of both counsel;

(9) The fact the accused was in custody 13 days approximately between October 29, 2010 and November 10, 2010 prior to obtaining judicial interim release;

(10) The sentencing provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act ;

(11) The apology in writing and in person in Court by the accused for his violent conduct; and

(12) That there have been no breaches of bail since the accused was granted strict bail – approximately 14 months. C. The Youth Criminal Justice Act [ 9 ] The provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act enacted in 2003, start from the position that when sentencing young criminals jail is a last resort.

In determining a youth sentence, s. 38(1) sets forth the purposes and general principles designed to hold young people accountable for their offences through the imposition of “just sanctions that have meaningful consequences” for the young person, that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society thereby contributing to long term protection of the public. [ 10 ] In determining an appropriate youth sentence: The court must ... s.38 (3) ... take into account (

a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence; (He was 100% responsible) (

b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable; (The harm was intentional and injuries were clearly foreseeable) (

c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community; (There have been none. Clothing / backpack / counseling) (

d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence; (13 days) (

e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; (None) (

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. (There are several aggravating factors and some mitigating factors, particularly his expression of remorse, even though late in the process.) D. Mandatory Orders [ 11 ]

(1) There will be a 10 year mandatory firearm prohibition pursuant to s. 51(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

(2) Pursuant to s. 47.051(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada , there will be an order that the accused provide a sample of his DNA suitable for analysis. The accused will be detained in custody today at the Courthouse for the purposes of obtaining that sample. E. Facts

[ 12 ] In the late morning hours of October 29, 2010, the accused, whilst armed with a knife (Exhibit 1) deliberately attacked a fellow student in broad daylight at [school name redacted]. The attack took place before shocked students and teachers. The accused disregarded a teacher’s instructions to stop and continued his violent rampage. He attacked his victim from the rear, running up to him in the smoke pit at the rear of the school. The accused obviously did not care who saw him. He had earlier announced his intention to attack his victim and he achieved that objective.

He was seen by witness A.H. to be running into the smoke pit, a knife in hand, then attacking his victim. There were other students present as well. The accused is a strong, well built young man. His victim. A.C. suffered several – at least four – stab wounds before the accused was pulled off. The accused then simply left without providing assistance. Later his own mother correctly described his actions as cowardly. He went home where he was arrested shortly thereafter. He had left A.C. bleeding heavily on the ground, stabbed in the side and back.

The knife sliced into his backpack, cutting it as well as his clothing. The backpack perhaps protected A.C. from further injury. However, he did suffer four puncture wounds to the side and back and was hospitalized for several days. [ 13 ] The accused had the nerve to call A.C. via his cell phone whilst A.C. was in the ambulance being taken to the hospital.

His taunting comment was, “Hey, how do you feel about the whole thing now?” His lack of empathy is an aggravating factor. [ 14 ] The night before the intentional assault, there had been a series of threatening text messages between the two young men. “I am going to kill you, you fucking faggot” and other immature insults back and forth. Clearly the accused’s violent actions were planned and deliberate. [ 15 ] To further make matters worse for himself just prior to the assault, the accused threatened to kill L.R. (Count 3) if she called authorities in an attempt to stop him inflicting harm upon A.C.

He said, “Don’t go to the smoke pit, I am going down there to stab A.C. at recess.” What better proof is there of an individual’s intention other than his own words. You were initially charged with attempted murder. You were completely callous and indifferent to the consequences of your violent actions. F. Aggravating Factors [ 16 ] In

summary then, obvious aggravating factors include:

(1) Your violence was deliberate and considered (consider the text messages – Exhibits 5 and 5(a);

(2) You attacked your victim suddenly and from the rear, i.e. unexpectedly;

(3) You armed yourself with a knife taken from home for the sole purpose of stabbing A.C.;

(4) You stabbed A.C. several times causing serious injuries and heavy bleeding. He is left with both the physical and emotional scars, probably for life;

(5) In a cowardly manner, you left the scene without providing any assistance;

(6) Your violent attack occurred in the rear of the [school name redacted] in front of shocked students and teachers at school recess;

(7) You threatened to kill L.R. (Count 3) and B.H.;

(8) While he was in the ambulance, you called A.C. on your cell phone after the violence in a taunting manner; and

(9) The ongoing emotional and physical suffering of your victim and his family caused by your callous violence. G. Crown Position on Sentence [ 17 ] The Crown position on sentence is that the Court should impose a 12 month custodial sentence and a 12 month supervision order. Crown counsel points out there have been various risk assessments as to the accused’s potential for future criminality and violent behaviour, i.e. his risk to reoffend. [ 18 ] The risk assessment opinions of these doctors have changed over time. Dr.

Stevenson in the pre-sentence report prepared for May of 2011, considered you to be a “moderate to high risk” to reoffend. He has now changed that opinion to a “low risk to reoffend”. Dr. Bartell and Dr. Ley say the risk to reoffend presently is “low and manageable” within the community. This is especially so since you’ve moved to Salt Spring Island. Nevertheless, Crown counsel says that jail is called for considering:

(1) The magnitude of your crime, the ongoing physical and emotional damages you have caused;

(2) Your high level of blameworthiness or moral culpability;

(3) The level of harm to your victim and to the community, particularly at West Vancouver High School. Parents are entitled to send their children to our public schools and not have them attacked by another student wielding a knife; and finally, that;

(4) The principles of meaningful consequences and accountability set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act can only be served in your case by a custodial sentence coupled with a probationary order. H. Defense Position on Sentence

[ 19 ] Mr. Fowler on your behalf concedes that on October 29, 2010, you were a psychologically troubled, socially maladjusted and emotionally unhealthy 15 year old boy when you attacked A.C. [ 20 ] L.P. was 15 years of age when he attacked young A.C. at school. He will be 17 years of age June 29, 2012. Mr. Fowler points out that at least for the last seven months, L.P. has fundamentally changed. He is well on the road to rehabilitation. A jail sentence is not required as the accused is now leading a healthy, constructive life. He and his family have relocated from West Vancouver to Salt Spring Island.

School staff know about this outstanding situation and teachers have been assisting in supervision as L.P. takes various Grade 10 and 11 subjects. Mr. Fowler points to the ongoing commitment of the accused’s mother to supervise her son. He has been bound by strict bail conditions, essentially house arrest for quite some time. He has been compliant with strict bail conditions. Mr. Fowler says if structure is needed in L.P.’s life, it is being provided through his school teachers and family. The accused’s father has started exercising with his son on weekends.

His father apparently travels during the week and is only at home on the weekends. Mr. Fowler points out, as do the psychologists that jail at this stage would be a retrograde step in L.P.’s reintegration into normal society. [ 21 ] Complicating matters is the accused’s deceit or dissembling to his probation officer and the forensic psychologist conducting his interview in preparation for sentencing. Sentencing originally had been scheduled for May of 2011.

At the request of the defense, sentencing was adjourned from May 2011 to October 28, 2011, in order that further psychiatric reports could be prepared. [ 22 ] The accused now seems to be backing away from some of his more outrageous statements surrounding such issues as remorse, his level of previous violence, and drug dealing. In May 2011, according to his probation officer, he reported no remorse but in October 2011, he expressed lots of remorse (updated pre-sentence report). Perhaps the accused is sincere in that change, perhaps not.

The accused says he was trying to portray a “tough guy” image because in May he expected to be going to jail and serving time in a youth detention facility. Knowing the facts as he did, his expectation was understandable. The accused now denies trafficking in drugs in any serious way and seeks to minimize his prior involvement in violence and criminality. Clearly L.P. was abusing serious drugs in and around the date of these offences, in particular crystal methamphetamine (20 times). As well he had been taking prescribed psychotropic medications in the summer / fall of 2010. I.

The Pre-Sentence Report [ 23 ] In her 15 page pre-sentence report, Ms. Tanya Pereira in a very thorough and insightful probation report, outlined inter alia her views as to the threat to reoffend presented by the accused. His behaviour started to deteriorate, particularly in and around Grade 8 at West Vancouver High School. He was depressed, anxious and suicidal. He didn’t fit in. He was not doing well in school. His father was away a lot. The accused felt disconnected. He said his mother was distant from him. When interviewed by the probation officer the accused’s father was angry at his son.

He’d lost respect for his son and was heartbroken. The accused’s mother said while on bail and bound by strict conditions, her son has been doing a lot better. She points out he does better in structured environments. L.P. acknowledges a Grade 9 pushing and shoving incident with another student. He acknowledges the use beginning in Grade 8 of marijuana. He acknowledges anger management issues in high school. Apparently in Grade 9 while playing football, he kicked an opposing football player in the head while the player was on the ground.

In the pre-sentence report the accused told the probation officer he was using marijuana daily at the end of Grade 8. His parents knew about it and disapproved. I accept that the parents of this accused are dedicated to him. In Grade 9, according to the pre-sentence report (page 6) L.P. started using harder drugs; meth- amphetamines, MDMA (Ecstasy) and Ketamine. He claimed he used Ecstasy up to 20 times. It would appear he was combining dangerous street drugs with prescription drugs. He sold drugs, at least marijuana to one degree or another. His parents were aware he was using both drugs and alcohol.

They were afraid he might be using hard drugs (page 7). His mother believed he was selling drugs in and around the school. She pointed out he had a fancy new set of headphones that he had got from somewhere. She assumed from selling drugs. [ 24 ] The accused now minimizes his criminal and antisocial involvement. He says he was not making $500.00 a week selling drugs. The truth is difficult to ascertain. J. Professional Psychological / Psychiatric Interventions [ 25 ] The accused’s parents were concerned about their son’s emotional stability. His mother initially in 2010 tried:

(1) A Transpersonal Psychotherapist and Shaman, Dr. John Luke Edwards. Apparently the accused considered a three year Shamanic Apprenticeship Program at some point in his treatment by this Dr. Edwards. There is no report from him;

(2) An Alderian Counselling Therapist, Dr. Skinner. This person appeared to be a failure and not pursued;

(3) Finally, in and around August of 2010, his mother consulted the family doctor who referred them to a child adolescent psychiatrist (Dr. Reddy). [ 26 ] After an apparent overdose, Dr. Dorothy Reddy started to see the accused a couple of months prior to the criminal assault charges. She described L.P. as having a mood disorder and anxiety disorder and parent/child relationship issues. He suffered from panic attacks, particularly in stressful school situations. She prescribed various drugs including Abilify, Atavan, Risperidone, Citalopram and Seroquel.

In early October of 2010, the accused was rushed to Lions Gate Hospital emergency with a possible overdose or drug reaction. Whether Dr. Reddy knew her young patient was also abusing street drugs is not clear. [ 27 ] Since the accused’s release to bail, he has apparently ceased taking any prescribed medications and all illegal drugs. In West Vancouver he lived a very structured home arrest type situation, i.e. a low stress environment. He has however, recently since

September started to attend public school on Salt Spring Island. Within the pre-sentence report, Dr. Bartell (page 10) in May of 2011, considered the accused to be at “high” risk to reoffend based on:

(1) Poor coping strategies;

(2) Poor modulation of emotion;

(3) Poor response to stress; and

(4) A tendency to act out. [ 28 ] According to Dr. Bartell, the accused in May of 2011, felt sorry only for the impact his conduct had had on A.C.’s parents and sister but not bad for A.C., his victim. He was not willing to complete any form of apology or participate in any offender/victim reconciliation programs. This was approximately seven months after the charges were laid. This opinion has to be considered in the light of Dr. Bartell’s update where he comes to the conclusion that the accused is presently at a low risk to reoffend.

The accused’s probation officer in May considered him to be at a high risk to reoffend if not properly monitored. She recommended a custodial disposition. Her revised pre-sentence report of October 25, 2011, paints a distinctly different picture. The accused has been extremely complaint with respect to his supervision from May to October 2011. He had gone beyond her expectations regarding integrating himself back into work, school and sports despite restrictions imposed on his bail order.

She points out the move from West Vancouver to Salt Spring Island has been a good one for both the accused, L.P. and his family. They were quite aware of the impact their son was having on the victim and the C. family while living nearby in West Vancouver. Finally she points out in the pre-sentence report prepared for May of 2011, the accused demonstrated no remorse for his actions. He now says to the probation officer; “I want to and will apologize for what I did.” He did apologize in Court. The victim, A.C. and his family, continue to struggle as they try to heal and make attempts to move forward.

It has not been easy for the entire family. A.C. has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and continues to seek therapy as have other family members. They have received inadequate victim financial assistance for counselling, etc. This is indeed unfortunate. K. Psychiatric Reports [ 29 ] Dr. Bartell on October 24, 2011, in an update to his earlier (May) opinion now describes the accused’s risk to reoffend as “low and manageable” within the community. The changes have been achieved without the use of any psychiatric medication. Dr.

Bartell points out the risk for future violence is a dynamic construct and can change over time. For L.P. to remain at a low risk to reoffend (page 3 of his report) he will need to continue to demonstrate emotional stability and continue to access professional support. [ 30 ] Dr. Ley, a clinical and forensic psychologist was retained by the defense after the adjourned sentencing date of May 2011. He conducted a risk assessment and psychological evaluation of the accused over seven hours on several different dates between August and October of 2011.

He says inter alia L.P. appeared embarrassed about his lack of self control and reckless, irresponsible behaviour. The accused, he says, shows clear signs of conscience formation (page 9). His self esteem and confidence are improving. [ 31 ] Dr. Ley says the accused advised he had earlier grossly exaggerated his violent, antisocial nature in the interview both with his probation officer and his youth forensic psychiatric service interview with Dr. Bartell. Only time will prove or disprove that assertion. In May of 2011, the accused believed he was going to end up in a youth correctional setting for his crimes.

He clarified the “tough guy” image was designed to enhance his status in the youth detention facility. I have serious misgivings about that assertion. [ 32 ] Contrary to Dr. Ley’s opinion about drug trafficking not producing any external signs of affluence or unexplained material gifts, the accused’s own mother advised she suspected he had been trafficking marijuana at school. On one occasion at least L.P. had an unexplained property, an expensive set of headphones. She suspected they were purchased from the selling drugs.

Again, the truth as to the extent of his drug trafficking involvement is known by the accused. [ 33 ] Dr. Ley points out the accused was for many weeks prior to his crimes here was using large amounts of illegal stimulant drugs, especially MDMA or Ecstasy. He apparently also used cocaine on an occasional basis, according to Dr. Ley. I find this drug abuse extremely troubling in a 15 year old boy. Dr. Ley does not refer to the possible interaction or synergistic effect of prescribed psychotropic medication taken together with or in and around the taking of illegal drugs such as MDMA or Ecstasy.

In the recent past there have been three fatal overdoses of ecstasy by young people in the City of Vancouver. [ 34 ] In

summary L.P. claims his earlier assertions about violence, drug dealing and assaultive behaviour were exaggerated to create a tough guy image. The extent and validity of such “exaggeration” is difficult to ascertain. The accused agrees he fought with others at school and occasionally provoked such fights, i.e. effectively he admits to being a bully. In response to a question from Dr. Ley he said, “Yes, I strangled a male friend in the late summer of 2010”. He seemed to justify his action by saying he was encouraged to by others. Dr.

Ley says L.P. became preoccupied with the idea of stabbing A.C. in retaliation for being rejected by A.C., as well as revenge for being “disrespected”. L.P. took a knife to school for the express purpose of stabbing A.C. His word and actions clearly support a finding he committed a deliberate, premeditated, aggressive criminal act. Arguably he was at least close to having the requisite mental element for the offence of attempted murder, i.e. the intention to kill. That is not the crime for which he is being sentenced. L.

L.P. – January 2012 [ 35 ] L.P. is not at present engaged in any ongoing psychological counselling on Salt Spring Island. This is somewhat concerning. He apparently does have a close relationship with his school guidance counsellor and football coach. Dr. Ley is of the view the accused presently has no diagnosable psychiatric disorders, other than ADHD. He is drug free!

[ 36 ] Dr. Ley does not feel the apparent change in lifestyle over the past few months to be a “courthouse conversion”. He feels this youth was extraordinarily disturbed in October of 2010 but now in December 2011 and January of 2012, is asymptomatic for any psychological disturbances. He, like others in the forensic psychological community, would have placed the accused at a very high risk for general criminality and violent offences in October 2010. In May of 2011 he would also have placed him at a moderate to high risk to reoffend.

But in December 2011, he is of the view L.P. is at a “low manageable risk to reoffend”. [ 37 ] As well as the reports of Dr. Ley and Dr. Bartell, the Court has the benefit of the psychological reports from youth forensic professionals provided by Dr. Ron Stevenson and Dr. Michelle McBride. Both are of the view as of December 2, 2011, in their updated reports that L.P. currently is functioning well within the community. Provided he has a high level of support he is at a low risk to reoffend.

The risk to reoffend, they say, is largely contingent on the accused’s ability to maintain his behaviour and emotional stability. He needs a long period of monitoring (page 4 of Dr. McBride’s updated report). She says this monitoring could be via a lengthy probation order taken in conjunction with psychological out patient treatment through the Victoria out patient youth forensic clinic. These doctors feel this would assist and provide the accused with support in the community and also provide him with relapse prevention assistance. [ 38 ] All forensic professionals now place L.P. at a low risk to reoffend. M.

Sentencing Considerations Generally [ 39 ] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v . P.(B.W.) 2006 CCC 3d p. 97, in interpreting the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act stressed that general and specific deterrence is not a principle of youth sentencing. [ 40 ] The Act stresses the “long term protection of the public” is achieved by addressing the circumstances underlying the offending behaviour, by rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person and by holding the young person accountable through the imposition of meaningful sanctions related to the harm done.

There can be no question but that there was considerable harm done to the accused’s victim and his family. [ 41 ] The Court in this particular case is required to consider the considerable length of time between the offence date October 29, 2010, and the sentencing date of January 11, 2012, some 14 months. [ 42 ]

Section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , under the heading Declaration of Principle, reads as follows: 3.

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

a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to (

i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person’s offending behaviour, (ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and (iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence in order to promote the long-term protection of the public; (

b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and emphasize the following: (

i) rehabilitation and reintegration, (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity, (iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected, * (iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences, and * (

v) the promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this Act must act, given young persons’ perception of time; * These sections have particular relevance here as the time from the offence to sentence is approximately 14 months. [ 43 ] The Court must have regard to victims’ rights (s. 3 (d)(ii)): (ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system, (iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard, ... [ 44 ] No doubt had the accused been sentenced in May of 2011, there might well have been a jail sentence imposed. [ 45 ] However, it was not unreasonable to adjourn the sentencing date from May to October 2011, i.e. to provide more psychiatric factual information to the Court.

Section 3(1) is also a relevant consideration to the adjourned sentencing date: ( c ) ... the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should

(iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration, ... [ 46 ] The fact the sentencing date was adjourned from May to October 2011, has benefitted the Court in making a reasoned determination as to what is an appropriate sentence. All professionals involved have modified their view regarding L.P.’s risk to reoffend .

The likelihood of recidivism is a key component in any sentencing involving offences of violence. According to all the professionals that risk has been reduced to manageable levels. The risk to reoffend, it is a “dynamic” which changes over time. In this case the “reduced threat to reoffend” has benefitted the accused and hopefully society. L.P. has been removed from the community where the offence occurred. He has recommenced his education. He is starting to successfully reintegrate into social situations, albeit under the strict supervision of a bail order and his family. N.

Jail or Probation ? [ 47 ] The following factors militate against imprisonment:

(1) You have moved with your family out of West Vancouver to Salt Spring Island.

(2) You have been prescription drug free;

(3) You continue to be illegal drug free;

(4) Your family relationships have improved considerably;

(5) According to the professionals your risk to reoffend presently is at a low level, manageable within the community;

(6) You were 15 years old and quite immature at the time of the offence.

(7) There has been over 14 months since the offences were committed. In the life of a teenager this is a lifetime;

(8) You had no prior, or subsequent, criminal convictions. There have been no breaches of bail since you have been released to bail;

(9) You have at this point expressed regret for the harm done to A.C. and the C. family. I hope your written and verbal expressions of remorse are indeed sincere.

(10) You have now, all though somewhat late in the day, taken responsibility for your outrageous violence and harm done to your victim, his family and the West Vancouver school community, s. 38 (3)(

e) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act . [ 48 ] The law requires the Court to impose “meaningful consequences”. It is submitted that your rehabilitation should not be interrupted. The victim, A.C. and the C. family, as you have seen in these Court proceedings are of the view that “meaningful consequences” should include a jail sentence. To them jail would not be a meaningless consequence. In their view you have committed a serious violent offence deserving of punishment. You were solely responsible for the offences. You used a weapon – a knife – and you caused serious bodily harm.

The occasioning of serious bodily harm was readily foreseeable. All of these factors lead them to the understandable view that the appropriate penalty for you includes a jail sentence if for no other reason than to punish you for your outrageous, deliberate violence. [ 49 ] Balanced against that view I bear in mind the following:

(1) You had serious mental health issues at the time. You were extremely emotionally unstable and depressed. You had suicidal ideations. You had few friends;

(2) You had serious “legal drug” issues. I have in mind there the reaction to Abilify;

(3) You had serious illegal or “street drug” issues, in particular the abuse voluntarily, by yourself, of Ecstasy or MDMA, possibly cocaine;

(4) You had a dysfunctional family relationship; you were angry and moody, doing poorly at school. In effect you were a bully. You were no stranger to violence but had no criminal record;

(5) You were young (15 years old). [ 50 ] At the end of the day I am satisfied the “long term protection of society” will best be achieved in your case by the imposition of a non custodial sentence. This is not an easy decision. If I am proven wrong and you are charged with breaching your probation, I expect the Crown to put the case before the North Vancouver Youth Court to be dealt with. [ 51 ] This is a Provincial Court and your crimes were at a West Vancouver public school. With regard to the offence of aggravated assault, I place you on two years probation on the following terms:

(1) You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

(2) You are to report in person to the youth court worker at Suite 301 – 224 West Esplanade, North Vancouver by 5:00 p.m. today, January 11, 2012 and thereafter as and when directed.

(3) You are to reside as directed by your youth court worker. You will not change that address without the prior written permission

of your youth court worker. You are to abide by all rules and regulations of that residence.

(4) You are to have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with A.C., D.C., W.C. or E.C., including any communications via email, text message, Facebook or Internet.

(5) You are not to be found within the district of West Vancouver save and except in the presence of one or both of your parents whilst travelling directly through West Vancouver.

(6) You are not to be found within a three block radius of any known residence, workplace or place of education of A.C., D.C., W.C. or E.C.

(7) You are to have no communication or contact directly or indirectly with L.R., B.H., A.Y.H., M.Y. or C.C.

(8) You are not to attend at any known place of residence, workplace or education of L.R., B.H., A.Y.H., M.Y. or C.C.

(9) In particular you are not to attend at the [school name redacted] / property located at [address redacted], West Vancouver, British Columbia or be found within a three block radius thereof.

(10) You are to make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain employment and/or attend an educational or vocational institute and/or work program as directed by your youth court worker. You are not to be absent from such school, educational institute or work program or employment without a valid written medical excuse provided to your youth court worker.

(11) You are to attend, participate and successfully complete such counselling as you may be directed to by your youth court worker and to the satisfaction of your youth court worker.

(12) You are to attend, participate in and successfully complete to the satisfaction of your youth court worker the Violent Offender Treatment Program offered through Youth Forensic Psychiatric Services.

(13) You are to attend, participate in and complete such psychological or psychiatric assessments, counselling, or programs as you may be directed from time to time by your youth court worker.

(14) You are to attend and participate in the Intensive Support and Supervision Program and/or participate in a one to one youth worker program as you may be directed to by your youth court worker and to the satisfaction of your youth court worker.

(15) You are not to possess or consume any alcohol or non prescription drugs or any controlled substance within the meaning of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act .

(16) You are not to be in possession of any knives except as necessary while preparing or consuming food or while caring out your duties of employment at your place of employment.

(17) You are not to be in possession of any weapons or imitation weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada .

(18) You are not to be in possession of any firearms, ammunition, explosives, or any other items enumerated in s. 51(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for a period of 10 year.

(19) If directed, you are to participate in the Restorative Justice Program as directed by your youth court worker.

(20) You will perform 75 hours of community work service to the satisfaction of your youth court worker within the first six months of your probation period.

(21) Pursuant to s. 42(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act I direct you make restitution in the amount of $500.00 to your victim, A.C., on or before August 30, 2012. This restitution is to be paid through the clerk of the Court. The restitution is to assist covering clothing, backpack, and as a contribution to inadequately funded counselling.

(22) You are to abide by the rules and regulations of your parents, M.J. and/or R.P. or whatever other residence you may be in from time to time.

(23) Curfew : Effective January 12, 2012, you will be in your place of residence between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., seven days a week up to June 30, 2012, save and except while in the company of M.J. or R.P., or a one on one worker approved of in writing by your youth court worker. If you obtain such written permission you will carry it with you at all times while outside your place of residence during the period of your curfew. You will present the written permission immediately to a peace officer upon demand.

During the period of your curfew you are to present yourself to the front door of your residence upon attendance of a peace officer, youth court worker or designate. For further purposes of monitoring the curfew, you will respond personally to the phone when a peace officer or youth court worker, or designate make a telephone call to your residence for the purposes of determining compliance with the curfew condition.

(24) Finally, I direct the youth court worker involved provide the principal of L.P.’s school with a copy of the sentencing decision. [ 52 ] Regarding Count 3, the charge of knowingly uttering a threat to L.R. to cause death or bodily harm. There will be a one year concurrent probation order on the same terms as Count 2, the aggravated assault conviction.

________________________________ The Honourable Judge D. E. Moss Provincial Court of British Columbia