R. v. N.C., 2015 SKPC 79

• Judge: Daunt, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 06, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKPC 79;(2015), 474 Sask.R. 299 (PC)

R. v. N.C. (2015), 474 Sask.R. 299 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.047

Her Majesty the Queen v. N.C.

(Information No. 37399591; 2015 SKPC 79)

Indexed As: R. v. N.C.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Youth Justice Court

Daunt, P.C.J.

May 6, 2015.

Summary:

N.C. pled guilty to a charge of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. The victim was six years old. N.C. was either 12 or 13 years old at the time of the offence. He had no prior criminal record.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that a sentence of two years' probation was appropriate, but the court reduced that sentence in consideration of the steps N.C. had already taken to begin his rehabilitation. The sentence was therefore 18 months' probation with conditions as recommended in the presentence report and the psychological assessment. The court also imposed a mandatory DNA order and a mandatory firearms prohibition pursuant to s. 51 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for a period of two years.

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 5832

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Rehabilitation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5932

Sentence - Sexual assault - N.C. pled guilty to a charge of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code - The six-year-old victim disclosed to a school counsellor that his cousin took him to the bathroom and "stuck his penis in my butt" - The victim agreed to this because N.C. promised him a turn on his video game if he complied - N.C. wore a condom and used some kind of lubricant - When the victim said that it hurt, N.C. stopped - N.C. told him not to tell anybody or "it would be bad" - N.C. was either 12 or 13 years old at the time of the offence - He had no prior criminal record - Nor had there been any further allegations of criminal behaviour - He had been on an undertaking since September 3, 2014 - After an initial glitch in his reporting obligation, he had been reporting regularly and had begun his sex offender treatment - He was a low risk to re-offend sexually - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that N.C. had committed a "violent offence" and therefore custody was an available sanction - However, the court held that a rehabilitative sentence was the most likely to ensure the long-term protection of the public and that the best way to rehabilitate N.C. was to allow him to remain in the community and take appropriate treatment and education - The court found that a sentence of two years' probation was appropriate, but it reduced that sentence in consideration of the steps N.C. had already taken to begin his rehabilitation - The sentence was therefore 18 months' probation - The court also imposed a mandatory DNA order and a mandatory firearms prohibition pursuant to s. 51 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for a period of two years.

Criminal Law - Topic 8806

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punishments) - Sentencing considerations - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8809

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punishments) - Probation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8817.4

Young offenders - Decisions (incl. punishments) - Custody - Violent offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. V.I.C. (2005), 269 Sask.R. 131; 357 W.A.C. 131; 2005 SKCA 95, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. D.W. (2006), 287 Sask.R. 237; 2006 SKQB 460, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. C.S.U. (2006), 289 Sask.R. 28; 382 W.A.C. 28; 2006 SKCA 120, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. B.E.O. (2012), 392 Sask.R. 72 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. B.D.L. (2013), 430 Sask.R. 99; 2013 SKQB 355, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. L.T.W. (1995), 131 Sask.R. 47; 95 W.A.C. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. C.D., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 668; 343 N.R. 1; 376 A.R. 258; 360 W.A.C. 258; 261 D.L.R.(4th) 257; [2006] 5 W.W.R. 195; 54 Alta L.R.(4th) 67; 203 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 34 C.R.(6th) 323; 67 W.C.B.(2d) 867; 2005 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, sect. 38 [para. 9]; sect. 39 [para. 10]; sect. 42(5) [para. 11].

Counsel:

John Syrnick, for the Crown;

Andrew Appolloni, for the defence.

This matter was heard at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, before Daunt, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on May 6, 2015.