R. v. A.B.

R. v. A.B.

Court had jurisdiction to hear the s.94 review and, after weighing statutory factors including rehabilitation prospects, public safety and family capacity to control the youth, concluded that the custodial portion should be confirmed under para. 94(19)(a) of the YCJA; affirmed affidavits are legally equivalent to sworn affidavits and cannot be discounted for that reason alone.

Citation
2014 NSPC 43
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (young Person): A.B.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Youth Criminal Justice Act Review of Custodial Sentence Following Breach / Review Hearing Under S.94 YCJA After Collapse of Deferred Custody to Custody and Supervision Order
Outcome
Application to reduce the custodial portion denied; existing custody-and-supervision order confirmed.
Legal Topics
Section 94 Review, Deferred Custody, Collapse of Sentence, Custody and Supervision Order, Public Safety, Rehabilitation
Source Language
English
Youth Criminal Law Sentencing Breach of Probation Custody Review Section 94 Review Deferred Custody Collapse of Sentence Custody and Supervision Order +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

A.B.

Accused (young Person)

Procedural Posture

Youth Criminal Justice Act Review of Custodial Sentence Following Breach / Review Hearing Under S.94 YCJA After Collapse of Deferred Custody to Custody and Supervision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the custodial portion of A.B.'s sentence should be reduced under s.94 YCJA
  2. 2 Whether grounds under s.94(5) and (6) exist to justify review
  3. 3 Whether rehabilitation prospects in the community outweigh public safety concerns and progress in custody

Ratio Decidendi

Court had jurisdiction to hear the s.94 review and, after weighing statutory factors including rehabilitation prospects, public safety and family capacity to control the youth, concluded that the custodial portion should be confirmed under para. 94(19)(a) of the YCJA; affirmed affidavits are legally equivalent to sworn affidavits and cannot be discounted for that reason alone.

Court Disposition

Application to reduce the custodial portion denied; existing custody-and-supervision order confirmed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Custody-and-supervision order confirmed and left in place under para. 94(19)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act