R. v. F.R.G., 2015 ABPC 248

JudgeHolmstrom, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateOctober 30, 2015
Citations2015 ABPC 248;[2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.016

R. v. F.R.G., [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.016

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.016

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. F.R.G. (defendant)

(141219170Y101001; 2015 ABPC 248)

Indexed As: R. v. F.R.G.

Alberta Provincial Court

Holmstrom, P.C.J.

November 26, 2015.


J.L. and his girlfriend were travelling by transit bus in Edmonton. J.L. was quarrelsome with others on the bus. Fifteen year old F.R.G. was on the bus with friends. J.L. was belligerent towards his girlfriend, which led to a confrontation as F.R.G. and one of his friends sought to take the girlfriend's side. The bus arrived at the Coliseum bus terminal. F.R.G. and his friends got off. One of F.R.G.'s friends handed a knife to F.R.G. The friend walked away while F.R.G. waited outside of the bus. After J.L. got off the bus and walked a few steps away, F.R.G. stabbed him in the back of the neck with the knife. J.L collapsed. F.R.G. ran away. The stabbing resulted in J.L. becoming a quadriplegic. F.R.G. pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault and one count of having in his possession a knife for purposes dangerous to the public peace. He had a youth record which included convictions for assault. The Crown served notice pursuant to s. 64 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that it intended to seek an adult sentence to be imposed on F.R.G.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the Crown had not met the onus to satisfy the court that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability of the young person was rebutted, and that the youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable. The court stated that "I am satisfied that after taking into account 13 months of pretrial custody, I would not apply any credit for it in the circumstances. I am further satisfied that the appropriate, and indeed on the evidence, the only sentence to be applied in the circumstances which has an opportunity to reduce the risk of reoffending by F.R.G. is the 24 month IRCS plan before the Court. ... The requirements of section 42(7) have been met. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there should be an order of adult sentence imposed on F.R.G. It is ordered that F.R.G. is not liable to an adult sentence and that a youth sentence must be imposed."

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 5871

Sentence - Possession and use or sale of weapons - See paragraphs 1 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 5938

Sentencing - Sentence - Particular offences - Aggravated assault - See paragraphs 1 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 8817.8

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punishments) - Adult sentence - See paragraphs 1 to 65.


W. Marke, for the Crown;

G. Johnson, for the Defence.

This matter was heard on October 30, 2015, before Holmstrom, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 26, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT