R. v. J.A.C., (1999) 138 Man.R.(2d) 226 (CA)

• Judge: Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 07, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 226 (CA)

R. v. J.A.C. (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 226 (CA);

    202 W.A.C. 226

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.032

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. J.A.C. (appellant)

(AY 99-30-04295)

Indexed As: R. v. J.A.C.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A.

September 30, 1999.

Summary:

The accused young offender pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to six months' open custody. She was detained in the Manitoba Youth Centre in a cottage which also housed youths sentenced to secure custody and youths awaiting trial. The accused applied for habeas corpus and a declaration that her detention at the Manito­ba Youth Centre was unlawful. The applica­tion was dismissed. The accused appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted a declaration that the accused's detention at the Manitoba Youth Centre as it was presently constituted was unlawful. The accused was to be released unless she was immediately transferred to an open custody facility which was properly designated and used exclusively as such.

Criminal Law - Topic 8807

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punish­ments) - Committal or placement of young offender - [See Criminal Law - Topic 8817 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8817

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punish­ments) - Custody - Place of - The accused young offender was sentenced to six months' open custody for robbery - She was detained in the Manitoba Youth Centre in a cottage which also housed youths sentenced to secure custody and youths awaiting trial - The Manitoba Court of Appeal granted a declaration that the ac­cused's detention at the Manitoba Youth Centre as it was presently constituted was unlawful - The accused was to be released unless she was immediately transferred to an open custody facility which was proper­ly designated and used exclusively as such - The use of the same cottage for the detention of both secure and open custody residents at the same time was contrary to the Young Offenders Act - The designation of an undivided facility as a place of open custody when that facility had already been designated as a place of secure custody was improper.

Cases Noticed:

L.H.F., Re (1985), 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44; 170 A.P.R. 44; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 152 (P.E.I.S.C.F.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

D.B., Re (1986), 72 N.S.R.(2d) 354; 173 A.P.R. 354; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 468 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

C.F. v. Canada and Manitoba et al. (No. 2) (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 297; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 258 (C.A.), dist. [para. 17].

C.F. v. Canada and Manitoba (No. 2) (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 120; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

R.I. Histed, for the appellant;

I.D. Frost and B.T. Jones, for the respon­dent.

This appeal was heard on September 7, 1999, before Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Twaddle, J.A., on Septem­ber 30, 1999.