R. v. C.H.C., (2009) 465 A.R. 240 (QB)

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 26, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 465 A.R. 240 (QB);2009 ABQB 125

R. v. C.H.C. (2009), 465 A.R. 240 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. MR.078

Her Majesty The Queen v. C.H.C. (060603529Q1; 2009 ABQB 125)

Indexed As: R. v. C.H.C.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moreau, J.

February 26, 2009.

Summary:

The youth, in a judgment reported [2008] A.R. Uned. 199, was found guilty of second degree murder. The youth applied under s. 63(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for an order that a youth sentence be imposed rather than an adult sentence. The onus was on the Crown to establish that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the youth accountable.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench directed that a youth sentence be imposed and sentenced him to the maximum sentence (four years' custody, to be served in a federal penitentiary, followed by three years' conditional supervision in the community).

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 8817.8

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punishments) - Adult sentence (incl. place of custody) - The youth, now 20.5 years of age, was a heavy cocaine user who was indebted to the deceased - When the deceased threatened harm to the youth's family if the debt were not paid, the youth responded by threatening the deceased with a shotgun while robbing him and assisting in setting his trailer on fire - Both incidents were to intimidate the deceased - In May 2006, the youth entered the deceased's trailer and shot him once, killing him - He was convicted of second degree murder - The youth applied under s. 63(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for imposition of a youth sentence - The onus was on the Crown to establish that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the youth accountable - The youth spent 32 months in pre-trial custody, during which time he completed his high school and successfully completed virtually all treatment programs offered - However, his motivation to accept treatment and counselling outside of a custodial setting was suspect - He was assessed as a high risk to re-offend and "while treatable, requires a lengthy, comprehensive, multifaceted treatment program in the range of three years outside the prison setting that addresses his substance dependence and his anti-social behaviour" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench directed that a youth sentence be imposed and sentenced him to the maximum sentence (four years' custody followed by three years' conditional supervision in the community) - The youth received no credit for 32 months' pretrial custody and was to serve the four year sentence in a penitentiary - The court held that the total sentence of seven years, following 32 months' custody, was of sufficient length to hold the youth accountable for his offence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.B. (2008), 374 N.R. 221; 237 O.A.C. 110; 2008 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. K.D.T. (2006), 222 B.C.A.C. 160; 368 W.A.C. 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. A.O. et al. (2007), 222 O.A.C. 38; 218 C.C.C.(3d) 409 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. X., [2008] J.Q. No. 1498 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2008] S.C.C.A. 147, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. S.H.M., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 446; 100 N.R. 1; 100 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. S.R.B. (2008), 435 A.R. 313; 2008 ABQB 327, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N. (2006), 350 N.R. 1; 227 B.C.A.C. 1; 374 W.A.C. 1; 205 Man.R.(2d) 282; 375 W.A.C. 282; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. C.K., [2006] O.J. No. 2982 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. A.O. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1167; [2006] W.D.F.L. 2526 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. E.L. (2006), 210 O.A.C. 124 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. D.W., [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. N.W.P. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 61; 437 W.A.C. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. B.C.F. (2008), 326 Sask.R. 77 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. M.B.W., [2007] A.R. Uned. 767; 2007 ABPC 292, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. T.W.T., [2007] A.R. Uned. 692 (Prov. Ct.), varied (2008), 437 A.R. 321; 433 W.A.C. 321, 2008 ABCA 306, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. M.K. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 394; 28 O.R.(3d) 593 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Counsel:

Wade Marke, for the Crown;

Robert A. Joly, for the accused.

This application was heard on September 30 and October 1-3 and 31, 2008, and January 20, 28 and 30, 2009, before Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 26, 2009.