R. v. M.G.

R. v. M.G.

Applying s.487.051(2) together with YCJA principles and the factors articulated in R. v. RC, the judge found that on the facts — a 14-year-old with no prior record who played a minor, impulsive role in a group assault and who credibly asserted real emotional and privacy concerns compounded by documented procedural lapses in DNA record protection — the impact of a primary DNA order on his privacy and security interests would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest; therefore a primary DNA order must be refused.

Citation
2008 NSPC 54
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (young Person): M.G.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Youth Criminal Sentencing (application for Primary DNA Order) / Decision on Application for Primary DNA Order at Sentencing
Outcome
Primary DNA order refused
Legal Topics
DNA Sampling, Section 487.051 Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act Privacy Protections, Primary Designated Offence, Retention and Destruction of DNA Samples
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Privacy Law Forensic DNA Law DNA Sampling Section 487.051 Criminal Code Youth Criminal Justice Act Privacy Protections Primary Designated Offence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

M.G.

Accused (young Person)

Procedural Posture

Youth Criminal Sentencing (application for Primary DNA Order) / Decision on Application for Primary DNA Order at Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a primary DNA order should be made for a youth convicted of a primary designated offence
  2. 2 Whether the impact of a DNA order on the youth's privacy and security interests is grossly disproportionate under s.487.051(2)
  3. 3 How YCJA principles and Supreme Court guidance in R. v. RC and R. v. DB inform the exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Applying s.487.051(2) together with YCJA principles and the factors articulated in R. v. RC, the judge found that on the facts — a 14-year-old with no prior record who played a minor, impulsive role in a group assault and who credibly asserted real emotional and privacy concerns compounded by documented procedural lapses in DNA record protection — the impact of a primary DNA order on his privacy and security interests would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest; therefore a primary DNA order must be refused.

Court Disposition

Primary DNA order refused

Orders

  • Primary DNA order will not be made; no DNA sample shall be taken from the young person