R. v. D.C., 2015 SKPC 59

• Judge: Daunt, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKPC 59;(2015), 471 Sask.R. 254 (PC)

R. v. D.C. (2015), 471 Sask.R. 254 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.044

Her Majesty the Queen v. D.C.

(Information No. 39122799; 37399771; 37399819; 39593605; 39593511; 36863321; 38979381; 39593403; 2015 SKPC 59)

Indexed As: R. v. D.C.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Daunt, P.C.J.

April 13, 2015.

Summary:

In November 2014, the accused young person was arrested for her alleged participation in a June 2014 break and enter wherein a co-accused deployed bear spray in a residence. The accused was released by consent on an undertaking with numerous restrictive conditions. Over the next four months, she was charged several more times, primarily for breaching the undertaking. The current charges alleged that the accused had resisted arrest and breached two conditions of her undertaking (curfew and drug/alcohol abstention). The Crown applied to revoke the accused's previous release documents and to detain her in custody pursuant to s. 524(8) of the Criminal Code and s. 29(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the Crown had failed to justify the accused's detention. The accused's previous release documents were revoked and she was released on a new undertaking where the only condition was that she have no contact with the victims or ringleaders of the June 2014 offences.

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 3301

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Detention necessary for protection of public (i.e., secondary ground) - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 8719.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8716.1

Young offenders - General principles - Procedure - Bail or judicial interim release - Conditions - In November 2014, the accused young person (DC) was arrested for her alleged participation in a June 2014 break and enter wherein a co-accused deployed bear spray in a residence - DC came from a stable home, attended school regularly, had no criminal record, and was not charged with any offences in the five months before her arrest - Despite this, she was released by consent on an undertaking with numerous restrictive conditions - No facts were heard and none of DC's personal circumstances were put before the court - Over the next four months, DC was charged several more times, primarily for breaching the undertaking - She was released each time on equally or more onerous forms of release - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that "This case serves as a reminder that when young persons are released by consent, the Court has an obligation to ensure that any conditions imposed are reasonable and that they are necessary to reduce the risk of missing Court or to public safety." - See paragraph 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 8716.1

Young offenders - General principles - Procedure - Bail or judicial interim release - Conditions - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that "Under Part XVI of the Criminal Code, and especially under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, no condition should be imposed on an accused, who is presumed innocent, unless it is necessary to ensure attendance in Court or to reduce the risk to public safety - including the risk of committing a serious offence - to an acceptable level. Bail conditions are not to replace parenting. ...  Court conditions should be used sparingly, and only if, but for that condition, the accused would have to be remanded in custody. It is not pre-trial sentencing. Conditions on judicial interim release must relate to the particular offence and the grounds of detention. Their purpose is not to ensure general good conduct, but to ensure attendance in Court, protection of the public, and the integrity of the trial process. We must take care not to criminalize normal adolescent behaviour. It is normal for teens to test the boundaries of parental authority. It is normal for teens to associate with their peers. If [the accused] has addictions that put her own safety at risk, a Youth Detox order may be warranted or Social Services might apprehend, but detention under the Youth Criminal Justice Act cannot substitute for these measures." - See paragraphs 59 and 60.

Criminal Law - Topic 8716.1

Young offenders - General principles - Procedure - Bail or judicial interim release - Conditions - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 8719.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8718

Young offenders - General principles - Procedure - Bail or judicial interim release - General - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 8716.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8719.1

Young offenders - General principles - Detention - General - In June 2014, a group of teenagers broke into a home where they had earlier been partying and deployed bear spray - The 14 year old accused (DC) was arrested for her alleged participation and then released on an undertaking with numerous restrictive conditions - Over the next four months, DC was charged several more times, primarily for breaching the undertaking (curfew, drug/alcohol abstention, contact with friends who were also involved in the offence) - The Crown applied to detain DC in custody on the basis that she was a danger to the public - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the Crown had failed to justify DC's detention - Although the June 2014 allegations were serious, DC's role was minor and she herself was not alleged to have done anything violent - The likelihood of a finding of guilt was tenuous - None of the offences that DC had committed since her initial release constituted a "serious offence" - She was basically hanging out late at night with her friends, none of whom were the ringleaders of the original offence - Detention under the Youth Criminal Justice Act was not to be used as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures - The court revoked DC's previous release documents and released her on a new undertaking where the only condition was that she have no contact with the victims or ringleaders of the June 2014 offence - See paragraphs 45 to 51 and 53 to 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 8719.1

Young offenders - General principles - Detention - General - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 8716.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.C. (2014), 352 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 1097 A.P.R. 340 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Lowe v. Azzorpardi, [1976] 3 W.W.R. 377 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 2].

R. v. Tabor (C.), [2003] Sask.R. Uned. 173; 2003 SKCA 59, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. S.K., 1998 CanLII 13344 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 3].

R. v. Keenan (1979), 12 C.R.(3d) 135; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 267 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 3].

R. v. A.D.B. (2009), 345 Sask.R. 134; 2009 SKPC 120, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Doncaster (R.I.) (2013), 335 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 1060 A.P.R. 331; 2013 NSSC 328, refd to. [para. 54].

Counsel:

Ms. Lauren Ellis, for the Crown;

Mr. Blaine Beaven, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, before Daunt, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 13, 2015.