Case Brief CRCJ 3202 A
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Carleton University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3202
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by MasterHare1599
Legal Case Brief
Lana Corbett Wennekes
101200848
Department of Criminology, Carleton University
CRCJ 3202 A: Youth Justice in Canada
Dr. Ellen Faulkner
November 8, 2023
Corbett Wennekes 1
1.
Name of Case
R. v. C.T., [2005] M.J. No. 515
2.
Citation and Year
R. v. C.T., [2005] M.J. No. 515
3.
Facts of the Case
This case was heard in the Manitoba Court of Appeal on November 3, 2005, with
Judgements made on December 19, 2005. The accused, T.(C.), had pled guilty to the following
offences: assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, possession of a prohibited firearm, breach
of an undertaking, and assualt. At this sentencing trial, T.(C.) had been out of custody on release
for 13 months
1
. T.(C.) was 17 when he committed the offences mentioned above, he had recently
left school after the death of his mother and was seeing a psychologist to cope with his mother's
passing, the psychologist had written that T.(C.) “has been sincere in trying to address his
difficulties”
2
T.(C.)’s family owned a restaurant, where he worked from time to time
3
to help care
for his two younger brothers and his father; this indicates that his family was well enough off to
own and operate a business, but required the contribution of everyone for success. The race and
sexual orientation of T.(C.)and the victims are not mentioned, however, we are informed that
those involved are all men under the age of 18. T.(C.)had a criminal record for theft, as well as
trafficking and possession of a controlled substance
4
.
4.
Issues
The issue of this case is as follows: is denunciation a principle of sentencing under the
Youth Criminal Justice Act?
5
As this question is mentioned in the sentence appeal by T.(C.) in the
1
R. v. C.T.,
[2005] M.J. No. 515 at para 2.
2
Ibid
at para 11
3
Ibid
at para 11
4
Ibid
at para 12
5
Ibid
at para 1
Corbett Wennekes 2
lower court, The Court mentioned that her primary focus was to denounce T.(C.)’s conduct by
stating “ This is not about deterrence, general deterrence to other youths, this is about
rehabilitation and denunciation."
6
5.
Ruling/Holding
The ultimate ruling in this case is stated by JJ. A Hamilton, where they “agreed that leave
to appeal would be granted and the appeal would be allowed”
7
. There are also concurring
statements made by Twaddle J.A. justifying the decision in other words.
6.
Legal Reasoning
The legal reasoning behind the aforementioned ruling considers and refers to several
legal policies and errors from the lower-level court rulings. The three statutes that were referred
to are s. 42(2)(k), s. 42(2)(n), and s. 42(9)
8
. There are several statutes that are also considered,
these consist of s. 3(1)(a)(iii), s. 3(1)(b)(iv), s. 38(1), s. 38(2)(e)(iii)
9
, among others. However,
the most crucial forms of legislation that hold value to this case are the
Young Offenders Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1 and the
Youth Criminal Justice Act,
S.C. 2002, c.1
10
.
A primary factor of why the issue of denunciation was appealed, was on the basis that at
the time of the case, denunciation was not a sentencing principle under the YCJA
11
, nor was it
referred to in any sentencing provisions in the YCJA or s. 50(1)
12
. The Court here states that “A
judge cannot sentence one young person with the aim of sending a message to other youth”
13
and
defends its argument with colleague Twaddle J.A.’s concurring statement of “[t]he act of
convicting a young person of a criminal offence is, of itself, a denunciation of the young person's
6
Ibid
at para 21
7
Ibid
at para 32
8
Ibid
at headnote
9
Ibid
at headnote
10
Ibid
at headnote
11
Ibid
at para 25
12
Ibid
at para 25
13
Ibid
at para 26
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Corbett Wennekes 3
conduct"
14
. The Court here states that the lower-level court erred in principle and did not give
adequate consideration to reintegration and rehabilitation principles while also highlighting that
lower-level courts failed to consider other reasonable alternatives to custody, which is required
by s. 39(2)
15
. JJ. A Hamilton also recognizes that T. (C.) also spent 40 days in custody prior to his
bail release
16
, this custody was indicated as a clear way to denounce his conduct from the lower-
level courts.
JJ. A Hamilton outlines the conditions of the 12-month custody and supervision orders
that T. (C.) will face. His imposed probation order has conditions consistent with some, but not
limited to the following:
1.
report to and be supervised by the provincial director or designated youth worker,
and report within 48 hours of release from custody and thereafter at least monthly,
or more frequently, as required by the youth worker;
17
2.
make reasonable efforts to obtain and maintain suitable employment or to attend
school or other place of training that the youth worker approves;
18
3.
reside with his father;
19
4.
notify the youth worker of any change of address or change in employment,
education or training;
20
Lastly, JJ. A Hamilton suggests that the reason T.(C.) is not being faced with any form of curfew
is due to the 15-month probation order he was given and at the respected time of sentencing, T.
(C.) had already been in his seventh month of his probation order.
14
Ibid
at para 42
15
Ibid
at para 31
16
Ibid
at para 31
17
Ibid
at para 22
18
Ibid
at para 22
19
Ibid
at para 22
20
Ibid
at para 22
Corbett Wennekes 4
7.
Opinion
In my opinion, I do agree with the decision made by the Court to accept the appeal. The
lower-level court did err in principle. The Court, in my opinion, did not make any considerations
of class, ability, gender or sexual orientation- I find it would be difficult to argue that the Court
did consider the aspects of race and ethnicity by looking at the location of the hearing, this was
heard in the Manitoba Court of Appeal, Manitoba does have a higher population of indigenous
peoples, however, it would be unjust to assume so. I feel the court considered the mitigating
offences of the recent passing of his mother and having to help care for his siblings and father,
while also considering the aggravating offence of his prior criminal record and drug abuse issue
that occurred prior to the offences at hand. I agree with the Judge when she suggested the lower-
level Court imposed an unfit sentence while shifting her focus to denunciation and failed to
adequately consider the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration which was, at the time of
this hearing, the focus points of the YCJA while denunciation was not implied in the legislation.
Corbett Wennekes 5
References
R. v. C.T., [2005] M.J. No. 515
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help