R. v. D.D.T., 2009 ABQB 362

• Judge: Germain, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 17, 2009
• Citations: 2009 ABQB 362;(2009), 467 A.R. 341 (QB)

R. v. D.D.T. (2009), 467 A.R. 341 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. JN.129

Her Majesty The Queen v. D.D.T. (A Young Person)

(050653443Q1; 2009 ABQB 362)

Indexed As: R. v. D.D.T.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Germain, J.

June 17, 2009.

Summary:

A 13 year old girl was lured to a golf course, where she was sexually assaulted and beaten to death. Two adults and three youths were involved. The accused youth (D.D.T.), in a judgment reported [2008] A.R. Uned. 588, was found guilty of second degree murder and aggravated sexual assault. Although she had not participated in the scheme to kidnap the girl, she participated in the beating and helped hold the girl down while she was sexually assaulted. The Crown applied under s. 71 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to have D.D.T. liable to an adult sentence, arguing that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold D.D.T. accountable for her offending behaviour.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The Crown failed to discharge the persuasive burden of establishing that a sentence under the Act would be of insufficient length to hold D.D.T. accountable.

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) - In April 2005, a 13 year old girl was lured to a golf course, sexually assaulted and beaten to death - Two adults and three youths were involved - The 16 year old youth (D.D.T.) was convicted of second degree murder and aggravated sexual assault - Although she had no advance knowledge of what was planned, at the direction of others she participated in the beating and helped hold the girl down while she was sexually assaulted - The Crown applied under s. 71 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to have D.D.T. liable to an adult sentence, arguing that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold D.D.T. accountable for her offending behaviour - The maximum youth sentence was seven years (four years custody and three years community supervision) - If credit was given for four years' pre-trial custody (court had a discretion not to give credit), D.D.T. would already have served the custodial portion of any youth sentence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - D.D.T. was a follower, not an instigator - She was the youngest and least morally culpable of all those involved - At the time of the offence, D.D.T. was a drug user and a sex-trade worker, resulting from an emotionally, physically and sexually abusive childhood - She was diagnosed as having anti-social personality disorder and borderline personality disorder - Given her multiple psychological issues, she was a high moderate risk to re-offend - She needed long-term individual psychotherapy - The court held that based on "her involvement in the crime, her conviction as a party to the offence as opposed to a key perpetrator, her youth and immaturity, plus her lack of participation in the planning, I conclude D.D.T. can be held accountable within the sentencing regime of the YCJA. Second, based on her positive effort while in the CYOC, including her behaviour, educational achievements, and her expressions of remorse and empathy for the victim and the victim's family, that she is treatable within the upper limits of the YCJA sentence range".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. S.A.C., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 675; 377 N.R. 361; 267 N.S.R.(2d) 202; 853 A.P.R. 202; 2008 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. D.B., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3; 374 N.R. 221; 237 O.A.C. 110; 2008 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 4].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 4].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 941; 350 N.R. 1; 205 Man.R.(2d) 282; 375 W.A.C. 282; 227 B.C.A.C. 1; 374 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. M.L.M. (2008), 432 A.R. 273; 424 W.A.C. 273; 2008 ABCA 212, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. S.R.B. (2008), 435 A.R. 294; 2008 ABQB 48, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. A.O. et al. (2007), 222 O.A.C. 38; 84 O.R.(3d) 561; 2007 ONCA 144, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. C.H.C. (2009), 465 A.R. 240; 2009 ABQB 125, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Williams (M.B.W.) (2008), 437 A.R. 325; 433 W.A.C. 325; 2008 ABCA 317, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al. (2007), 413 A.R. 53; 2007 ABQB 196, revd. (2008), 437 A.R. 301; 433 W.A.C. 301; 2008 ABCA 327, leave to appeal granted (2009), 395 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. M.B.W., [2007] A.R. Uned. 767; 2007 ABPC 292, affd. (2008), 437 A.R. 325; 433 W.A.C. 325; 2008 ABCA 317, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Williams (M.B.) - see R. v. M.B.W.

Laboucan - see R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al.

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al. (2009), 446 A.R. 106; 442 W.A.C. 106; 2009 ABCA 7, leave to appeal granted (2009), 387 N.R. 372; 454 A.R. 48; 455 W.A.C.48; 2009 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. S.R.B. (2007), 416 A.R. 223; 2007 ABQB 289, affd. (2009), 448 A.R. 124; 447 W.A.C. 124; 2009 ABCA 45, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. MacIntyre and Liron (1992), 135 A.R. 166; 33 W.A.C. 166; 18 W.C.B.(2d) 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. T.B. (2006), 207 O.A.C. 255; 78 O.R.(3d) 721 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. E.L. (2006), 210 O.A.C. 124; 69 W.C.B.(2d) 600 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. D.W., [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 179; 79 W.C.B.(2d) 80; 2008 ONCA 268, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. C.J.A. (2005), 262 Sask.R. 300; 347 W.A.C. 300; 2005 SKCA 85, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. J.R.L. (2007), 254 N.S.R.(2d) 344; 810 A.P.R. 344; 2007 NSCA 62, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. N.W.P. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 61; 437 W.A.C. 61; 2008 MBCA 101, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. N.L.H. (2009), 457 A.R. 224; 457 W.A.C. 224; 2009 ABCA 168, reving. 2008 CarswellAlta 2232 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. C.W.W. (2006), 403 A.R. 344; 2006 ABPC 191, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. M.D. (2008), 77 W.C.B.(2d) 844; 2008 ONCJ 310, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Lights (2007), 75 W.C.B.(2d) 457; 2008 ONCJ 173, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. G.D.S. (2009), 274 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 874 A.P.R. 200; 2009 NSCA 8, leave to appeal denied (2009) 398 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. T.D.S. (2009), 237 Man.R.(2d) 230; 2009 MBQB 54, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. B.C.F. (2008), 326 Sask.R. 77; 79 W.C.B.(2d) 410; 2008 SKPC 98, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. J.S.-R., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 966; 2009 CanLII 18884 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Pratt (D.D.) (2007), 239 B.C.A.C. 161; 396 W.A.C. 161; 2007 BCCA 206, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. D.E., [2008] A.R. Uned. 533; 2008 ABPC 231, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. C.K. (2006), 211 C.C.C.(3d) 426; 2006 ONCJ 283, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. T.F. et al., [2006] O.T.C. 866; 71 W.C.B.(2d) 139 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. T.W.T. (2008), 437 A.R. 321; 433 W.A.C. 321; 2008 ABCA 306, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. A.J.D. (2009), 275 N.S.R.(2d) 308; 877 A.P.R. 308; 2009 NSSC 56, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. P.K. et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 553; 2005 ABPC 190, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. B.K.T.S. (2009), 237 Man.R.(2d) 243; 2009 MBQB 56, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. M.M.K., [2005] A.R. Uned. 786; 2005 ABPC 254, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Logan (T.) (2009), 248 O.A.C. 355; 2009 ONCA 402, refd to. [para. 128].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Anne M. Schutte and John D. Watson (Alberta Department of Justice), for the Crown;

Peter J. Royal, Q.C. (Royal Teskey), for the accused.

This application was heard on May 11 to 15, 2009, before Germain, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on June 17, 2009.