Digest: R v J.F., 2018 SKCA 5

• Date: January 25, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 5

Docket Number: CACR 2986 , CA17127

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-01-25

Judges:

• Caldwell
• Herauf
• Whitmore

Subjects:

• Criminal law � Young Offender � Sentencing � Appeal
• Statutes � Interpretation � Youth Criminal Justice Act
• Statutes � Interpretation � Young Offenders Act

Digest: The appellant appealed his sentence imposed under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). He pled guilty to breaking and entering a house and committing robbery, committing an indictable offence with his face masked, trafficking in marijuana, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, two counts of failure to comply with probation conditions under the YCJA and possessing a firearm while prohibited. A number of other charges were stayed. He was in custody for three months prior to his sentencing. The Crown and defence counsel requested that sentencing proceed without a pre-sentence report and presented a joint submission that his sentence should be 34.5 months, composed of 15 months� secure custody, seven months of community supervision and 12 months of probation. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had erred in law by: 1) sentencing him without a pre-sentence report; 2) failing to consider s. 88(c) of the YCJA, a section that had incorporated the factors set out in s. 24.1(4) of the Young Offenders Act (rep.) before determining the level of custody; 3) imposing an unfit sentence in light of s. 38 and s. 39 of the YCJA; and 4) failing to provide reasons why a non-custodial sentence was not adequate as required by s. 39 of the YCJA.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The court found with respect each issue that the sentencing judge had: 1) not erred because she found she was satisfied that the report was unnecessary under s. 39(7) of the YCJA because both the Crown and defence consented and she noted that there was a judicial interim release report; 2) had erred in failing to consider the factors listed in s. 88(c) of the YCJA. The joint submission was silent regarding whether custody should be open or secure and the judge merely accepted the Crown�s submission and the defence�s acquiescence on the level of custody; 3) had not erred. The sentence was based upon the joint submission. As the appellant had not pointed to anything that demonstrated that the public interest test was not met, there was nothing to suggest that the judge was wrong in accepting it; 4) had not erred. The requirements of s. 39...