L.H.F., Re, (1985) 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44 (PEISC)

• Judge: MacDonald, J.
• Case Date: November 28, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (1985), 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44 (PEISC)

L.H.F., Re (1985), 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44 (PEISC);

    170 A.P.R. 44

MLB headnote and full text

L.H.F., Re

(No. GDC-6166)

Indexed As: L.H.F., Re

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

MacDonald, J.

December 5, 1985.

Summary:

A young offender applied for a declaration that the designation of the Kings County Jail as a place for open custody for him was invalid.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court allowed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 8807

Young offenders - Punishments - Committal into custody - Open custody - Designation of place for open custody - The second floor of the Kings County Jail, an old, inadequate adult jail, was designated as a place for open custody of a young offender - On the second floor the young offender was confined to a single room in virtual solitary confinement - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the designation of the jail as a place for open custody was invalid, because the jail was not a community residential centre, group home, child care institution or forest or wilderness camp or any other like facility in which open custody could be ordered under s. 24(1)(a) of the Young Offenders Act.

Cases Noticed:

F. and R., Re (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 297; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 258 (Man. C.A.), reving [1984] 6 W.W.R. 37; 30 Man.R.(2d) 120; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 161, appld. [para. 15].

C.F. v. Canada and Manitoba (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 297; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 258 (Man. C.A.), reving [1984] 6 W.W.R. 37; 30 Man.R.(2d) 120; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 161, appld. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82, c. 110, sect. 24(1) [para. 13]; sect. 24(8), sect. 24(9) [para. 20].

Counsel:

Kent Brown, for L.H.F.;

Judith Haldemann, for Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

This case was heard on November 28, 1985, at Charlottetown, P.E.I., before MacDonald, J., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 5, 1985: