R. v. B.C.F., 2008 SKPC 98

• Judge: Halliday, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 08, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2008 SKPC 98;(2008), 326 Sask.R. 77 (PC)

R. v. B.C.F. (2008), 326 Sask.R. 77 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.011

Her Majesty the Queen v. B.C.F.

(Information No. 44083215; 2008 SKPC 98)

Indexed As: R. v. B.C.F.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Youth Justice Court

Halliday, P.C.J.

August 8, 2008.

Summary:

The accused pled guilty to attempted murder through the use of a firearm after he shot his former girlfriend in the head. The accused was six weeks short of his 17th birthday when the offence was committed. Crown counsel filed a notice of intention to seek an adult sentence.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, held that a youth sentence would not have sufficient length to hold the accused accountable and an adult sentence would be imposed. The court held that a fit sentence was nine years. After credit for 10 months of presentence custody, the sentence imposed was eight years and two months. Mandatory orders for a DNA sample and a firearms prohibition were made.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 5881

Sentence - Murder (incl. attempts) - The accused pled guilty to attempted murder through the use of a firearm - The victim was his former girlfriend - The intent to kill the victim was formed and maintained over a period of time - The accused went to the victim's home with a rifle - He positioned himself within close range, lured the victim out of her house with a text message and shot her in the head - The accused was six weeks short of his 17th birthday when he committed the offence - He had no criminal record - He had not expressed any consistent, deeply felt regret or empathy for the victim - The Crown filed a notice of intention to seek an adult sentence - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, held that a youth sentence would not have sufficient length to hold the accused accountable and that an adult sentence would be imposed - The court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount and that those factors had to be weighed against the accused's youth and lack of record - The court held that a fit sentence was nine years - After credit for 10 months of pre-sentence custody, the sentence imposed was eight years and two months - Mandatory orders for a DNA sample and a firearms prohibition were made.

Criminal Law - Topic 8817.8

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punishments) - Adult sentence - The accused young person pled guilty to attempted murder through the use of a firearm - The Crown filed a notice of intention to seek an adult sentence - At issue was whether a youth sentence would have sufficient length to hold the accused accountable for his offending behaviour - The test to be applied was set out in s. 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) - Two sub-issues arose involving the nature of the Crown's onus and the meaning of accountability within the context of s. 72 - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, considered the issues with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. D.B. - The court stated that the illegality of the reverse onus provisions found by the Supreme Court extended only to the reversal of the onus - Otherwise, the test and factors in s. 72 of the YCJA remained unchanged - Nothing in the decision of R. v. D.B. reformulated the s. 72 onus or elevated the onus to the ultimate criminal standard of proof - R. v. D.B. did not alter the meaning of accountability in s. 72 of the YCJA as it was articulated in R. v. A.O. et al. (Ont. C.A.) - The court set out its approach to s. 72 - See paragraphs 9 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 8817.8

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punishments) - Adult sentence - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, stated that "a number of courts have combined principles from the YCJA [Youth Criminal Justice Act] with principles in the Criminal Code to determine adult sentences imposed on young persons. I very respectfully disagree with this approach" - The court stated that "The legislative scheme regarding adult sentences provides for an adult sentence as distinct from a youth sentence when a youth sentence passed in accordance with sections 3 and 38 of the YCJA would fail to achieve accountability. Inherent in this is the achievement of a different result through the application of different sentencing principles. The objective of making young persons liable to adult sentencing in certain cases is expressed in paragraph 72(1)(b) and section 74. The distinction between the youth and adult regimes is maintained in the language used. The grammatical and ordinary sense of subsection 74(1) is that the sentencing provisions, long term offender and dangerous offender provisions of Parts XXIII and XXIV of the Criminal Code apply to young persons for whom an adult sentence has been ordered ... the sentencing provisions of the YCJA apply when a Youth Justice Court is imposing a youth sentence. A young person for whom an adult sentence is ordered does not receive a sentence imposed pursuant to the sentencing provisions of the YCJA. A young person subject to such an order receives a sentence imposed pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Criminal Code" - See paragraphs 32 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.B. (2008), 374 N.R. 221; 237 O.A.C. 110; 2008 SCC 25, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. S.H.M. (1989), 100 N.R. 1; 100 A.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. A.O. et al. (2007), 222 O.A.C. 38; 84 O.R.(3d) 561; 2007 ONCA 144, consd. [para. 11].

R. v. J.M. - see R. v. A.O. et al.

R. v. T.F. et al., 2007 ONCA 710, affing. [2006] O.T.C. 866 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 12].

R. v. J.T.S. (2005), 270 Sask.R. 77; 2005 SKQB 416, affd. (2007), 304 Sask.R. 216; 413 W.A.C. 216; 2007 SKCA 84, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. C.G.M. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 103; 216 W.A.C. 103; 2000 SKCA 13, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. J.M., 2004 ONCJ 100, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. A.A.B. (2006), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 108; 767 A.P.R. 108; 2006 NSPC 4, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. D.W., [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 179; 2008 ONCA 268, varying [2006] O.T.C. 1268 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 28].

R. v. C.K., 2006 ONCJ 283, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. J.K.W., 2006 BCPC 52, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Lights, 2007 ONCJ 173, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. E.Q., [2008] B.C.J. No. 212 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 28].

R. v. S.R.B. (2008), 435 A.R. 313 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 28].

R. v. C.S. (2008), 265 N.S.R.(2d) 235; 848 A.P.R. 235 (Youth Ct.), consd. [para. 28].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Goforth (E.R.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 123; 342 W.A.C. 123; 2005 SKCA 12, consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Pratt (D.D.) (2007), 239 B.C.A.C. 161; 396 W.A.C. 161; 2007 BCCA 206, consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Bagga (H.S.) (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 171; 5 W.A.C. 171 (C.A.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Wenzel (1992), 126 A.R. 370 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Schroeder, 2004 CarswellOnt 8823 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Dennis (R.F.) (2005), 218 B.C.A.C. 67; 359 W.A.C. 67; 2005 BCCA 475, consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Legebokoff, [1983] S.J. No. 737, consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Sangwais, 1985 SKCA (SentDig) 157, consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Cope (1987), 59 Sask.R. 161 (C.A.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Do (1987), 57 Sask.R. 315 (C.A.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Weldegergis (1992), 100 Sask.R. 264; 18 W.A.C. 264 (C.A.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Redwood, 1995 SKCA (SentDig) 106, consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Junior, 1997 SKCA (SentDig) 49, consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Priest (J.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 163; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, sect. 72 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Constance Hottinger, for the Crown;

Jeffery W. Deagle, for the Defence.

This matter was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Halliday, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, who delivered the following judgment on August 8, 2008.