R. v. W., K.
Because the original disposition exceeded the statutory two-year maximum under s.20(3) of the Young Offenders Act and the trial judge applied adult sentencing principles in error, the Court of Appeal reduced the custodial portion to nine months and imposed fifteen months probation, producing an effective...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C32595
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: K. W. (a young person)
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 January 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under the Young Offenders Act / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Disposition
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; disposition reduced to nine months secure custody and fifteen months probation; effective twelve-month disposition when pre-disposition custody is accounted for.
- Legal Topics
- Young Offenders Act, Sentencing Limits, Custody, Probation, Illegality of Sentence Exceeding Statutory Maximum
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
K. W. (a young person)
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under the Young Offenders Act / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the disposition exceeded the two-year maximum under s.20(3) of the Young Offenders Act and is therefore illegal
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred by applying adult offender sentencing principles instead of youth-specific principles under the Young Offenders Act
- 3 What lawful disposition appropriately balances rehabilitation of the young person and protection of the public
Ratio Decidendi
Because the original disposition exceeded the statutory two-year maximum under s.20(3) of the Young Offenders Act and the trial judge applied adult sentencing principles in error, the Court of Appeal reduced the custodial portion to nine months and imposed fifteen months probation, producing an effective twelve-month disposition when pre-disposition custody is included, to comply with the Young Offenders Act while addressing rehabilitation and public protection.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; disposition reduced to nine months secure custody and fifteen months probation; effective twelve-month disposition when pre-disposition custody is accounted for.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Custodial portion reduced to nine months secure custody
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. W., K. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2000-01-24 Docket numbers C32595 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rosenberg, Marc; MacPherson, James C. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20000124 DOCKET: C32595 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. K. W. (a young person) (Appellant) BEFORE: ABELLA, ROSENBERG and MacPHERSON JJ.A. COUNSEL: Bernard Cugelman, for the appellant Karen Shai, for the respondent HEARD: January 18, 2000 On appeal from the disposition imposed by Douglas J. dated July 5, 1999. ENDORSEMENT [1] As the Crown properly concedes, a disposition totaling three and one-half years is illegal as it exceeds the two-year maximum prescribed by s.20(3) of the Young Offenders Act. Therefore, it falls upon this court to impose a sentence that complies with the law and balances the various factors and principles set out in the Young Offenders Act. [2] We agree with counsel for the appellant that the trial judge erred in principle in using factors concerning adult offenders virtually to the exclusion of the principles set out in the Young Offenders Act. This error led the trial judge to impose a very lengthy term of custody. Having said that, this was a very serious offence which had a serious impact on the complainant and her family. While there was some indication that the appellant was making some progress in treatment, the expert reports were equivocal and provided little assistance in determining the underlying cause of this very serious conduct. [3] The appellant served approximately three and one-half months of the secure custody term before being released on bail and also spent one and one-half months in pre-disposition custody. While we are always reluctant to return a young offender to custody in circumstances such as these, we believe that the appellant could continue to benefit from the treatment available at the Syl Apps Youth Centre and that such treatment may be required for the protection of the public. [4] Reducing the custodial portion of the disposition to nine months, as we intend to do, and taking into account the pre- disposition custody, this means that in effect the appellant is subject to a disposition of twelve months. This is a significant custodial term given the appellant’s age and background. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the disposition reduced to nine months secure custody and fifteen months probation on the same terms as those imposed by the trial judge. (Signed) "R. S. Abella J.A." (Signed) "M. Rosenberg J.A." (Signed) "J. C. MacPherson J.A."