The Principles and Philosophy of the Youth Criminal Justice Act

• Author: Brock Jones/Sarah Leece/Mary Birdsell/Emma Rhodes
• Pages: 1-19

1

I. Introduction: Why We Have a Separate Criminal Justice System

forYoungPersons ........................................ 

II. The Preamble ............................................ 

A. How to Eectively Use the Preamble .................... 

B. How the Supreme Court Has Interpreted the Preamble ..... 

III. Statement of Principles .................................... 

A. Section ()(a): The Purpose of the Youth Justice System ... 

B. Section ()(b): What Makes the Youth Criminal Justice

SystemUnique ..................................... 

C. Section ()(c): Imposing Sanctions on Youth ............ 

D. Section ()(d): Four Special Considerations ............. 

E. Section (): Giving Life to the Foregoing Principles ....... 

F. How the Supreme Court Has Interpreted the YCJA’s

DeclarationofPrinciple .............................. 

IV. Canada’s International Law Commitments ..................... 

A. The United Nations Convention on the Rights

of the Child ........................................ 

B. Highlights of the Text of the UNCRC .................... 

C. How the Supreme Court Has Applied the UNCRC ......... 

D. The Beijing Rules .................................... 

V. Bill C-: The Safe Streets and Communities Act ................ 

VI. Summary: Arguments for Crown Prosecutors and

Defence Counsel ......................................... 

A. Crown Prosecutors .................................. 

B. Defence Counsel .................................... 

The Principles

andPhilosophy

ofthe Youth

Criminal

JusticeAct

1

© 2024 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

2 Prosecuting and Defending Youth Criminal Justice Cases

I. Introduction: Why We Have a Separate Criminal

Justice System forYoungPersons

Canada’s youth criminal justice laws have gone through several dramatic changes in

the past 30years. Our current legislation, the Youth Criminal Justice Act,1 came into

force on April 1, 2003. It replaced the Young Oenders Act,2 which had been in place

since 1984 and was amended on several occasions. Prior to that, the Juvenile Delin-

quents Act,3 originally enacted in 1908, and amended many times over the course of

the 20th century, was the country’s governing legislation in this area.

These constant amendments and changes in legislation reflect the persistent

uncertainty and lack of consensus in youth criminal justice policy. Youth crime con-

jures up a wide range of attitudes and feelings in a manner that adult crime typically

does not. Often these sentiments are contradictory and at odds with one another.

Attempts to reconcile and balance these competing interests produce legislative

responses that are complicated and, at times, confusing.

Are children who commit criminal oences simply acting without thinking, their

“crimes” a reflection of bad choices during a time of evolving maturity? Is their

descent into criminality more a reflection of society’s failure to care for its most vul-

nerable members than it is a statement of their moral weakness?4 Or are these young

persons—old enough to know better and capable of choosing right from wrong—the

authors of their own misfortune and deserving of punishment? How one answers

these questions in the abstract will often demonstrate which of the two camps one

falls into, at least initially.

It is irrefutable that if we acknowledge the social, economic, personal, and other

disadvantages faced by young people, we are then able to more comprehensively

respond to oending behaviour and create opportunities for rehabilitation. Further-

more, if we fail to recognize the significance of issues such as poverty, social exclu-

sion, inadequate parenting, physical and mental health concerns, discrimination, and

insucient social and child welfare systems, we may further fail children who need

additional supports.

Choosing an appropriate “punishment” for a young person who engages in crimi-

nal behaviour is often extraordinarily challenging. And punishment, in whatever form,

must always be balanced with eorts at reforming the young person, and their envi-

ronment, to prevent recidivism. Such eorts will typically look to measures of social

1 SC 2002, c 1 [YCJA].

2 RSC 1985, c Y-1 [repealed] [YOA].

3 RSC 1970, c J-3 [repealed].

4 This was the governing philosophy of the Juvenile Delinquents Act: see Morris v The Queen,

[1979] 1 SCR 405 at 431, 1978 CanLII 168, where it was held that “[t]he aim of the Juve-

nile Delinquents Act is that juvenile oenders should be assisted and reformed rather than

punished.”

© 2024 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.