R. v. M.P.

R. v. M.P.

The court found s.39(1)(d) applicable because the aggravating circumstances of intentionally returning to a dwelling to set it on fire to destroy evidence, active participation by all accused, the high objective gravity of the non-violent indictable offences and the profound impact on a small rural community constituted an "exceptional case" where a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with s.38; however, the court selected the least restrictive custodial option consistent with s.38 and s.42(5) and imposed six months deferred custody and supervision in the community followed by probation (18 months for M.M. and C.S.; 24 months for M.P.) with ancillary orders (community service,...

Citation
2010 NSPC 54
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: M. P.; Defendant: M. M.; Defendant: C. S.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Youth Sentencing (ycja) / Sentencing Hearing Decision
Outcome
Deferred custody and supervision orders imposed (six months) followed by probation and ancillary orders
Legal Topics
Interpretation of S.39(1)(d) YCJA, Deferred Custody and Supervision (s.42), Custody and Supervision Orders, Restitution, DNA Order, Firearms Prohibition
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Criminal Justice Sentencing Arson Property Offences Interpretation of S.39(1)(d) YCJA Deferred Custody and Supervision (s.42) Custody and Supervision Orders +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

M. P.

Defendant

M. M.

Defendant

C. S.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Youth Sentencing (ycja) / Sentencing Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.39(1)(d) YCJA applies as an "exceptional case" permitting custody despite other gateways not applying
  2. 2 Whether deferred custody under s.42(5) YCJA is available and appropriate
  3. 3 What custodial disposition satisfies s.38 YCJA purposes and principles while being least restrictive

Ratio Decidendi

The court found s.39(1)(d) applicable because the aggravating circumstances of intentionally returning to a dwelling to set it on fire to destroy evidence, active participation by all accused, the high objective gravity of the non-violent indictable offences and the profound impact on a small rural community constituted an "exceptional case" where a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with s.38; however, the court selected the least restrictive custodial option consistent with s.38 and s.42(5) and imposed six months deferred custody and supervision in the community followed by probation (18 months for M.M. and C.S.; 24 months for M.P.) with ancillary orders (community service,...

Court Disposition

Deferred custody and supervision orders imposed (six months) followed by probation and ancillary orders

Orders

  • Six months deferred custody and supervision to be served in the community for M. M., C. S. and M. P., with standard and specific conditions including no alcohol or drugs, mental health and substance assessments and counseling, reporting to a youth worker, residency restrictions, strict stay-away orders from victims,...
  • Follow-up probation: 18 months for M. M. and C. S. (with first 12 months 11pm-6am curfew) and 24 months for M. P. (with first 12 months 11pm-6am curfew) on similar terms