Legal Brief

pdf

School

Carleton University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2301B

Subject

Electrical Engineering

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by DrLyrebird1516

Seraj Mohamed 101147682 07/11/2023 CRCJ3202A

Name of the Case R. v. N.G.M. and Others Citation and Year R. v. Richard I. [1985], 17 C.C.C. (3D) 523, 44 C.R. (3D) 168 (Ont. C.A). Facts This case involved six young offenders, all of whom were Native Canadians residing in or near Attawapiskat, a small village in Ontario. They faced multiple charges, including break-and-enter offenses and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, most of which were committed after the Young Offenders Act came into effect on April 2, 1984. The proceedings began when two appellants were charged with assault and breaking and entering, and a legal aid duty counsel, unfamiliar with the new Young Offenders Act, requested a predisposition report. The next day, a break-in occurred, and all six appellants were charged with this new offense. On June 28, all charges against the appellants were heard and disposed of, resulting in two-year custodial terms for all six. Issue The main issue in this case was whether the dispositions by the youth court were proper and whether they were per the requirements of the Young Offenders Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the custodial terms imposed were excessive or warranted modification.

More importantly, why was the court's disposition not in adherence to the newly legislated Young Offenders Act? And how did this off-railing lead to a disproportional disposition? It cannot be overstated that the guilty verdict is justified. The issue simply lies in the logistics of the disposition and how some crucial factors were left out. Whether intentional bias was behind the decision is irrelevant. However, it would be valid to entertain, considering the conditions of native people in Canada during that time and the racial bias that unequivocally existed. The motivation for the crime is unclear. This legal case is strict and contingent on outlining the issues stated above, therefore forgoing any opportunity to address the circumstances behind the acts. Also, it must be emphasized that motivation is not the topic that deserves the spotlight in this case, rightfully so, as it is nullified by a brash disposition set forth by Judge G.E. Cloutier. Therefore, motivation can only be assumed to be a body of factors that youth offenders usually go through, especially native youth around that time. Factors that could have influenced motivation are peer pressure, financial difficulties, poor parenting or lack thereof, and a sense of belonging, amongst others. I believe that the fact that Attawapiskat is a small village amplifies the weight of influence the youth had on each other since another group within the same age would be hard to come by. Also, this would increase the significance of the pressure to act. Financial difficulties could also be the motivation for some of the youth. The case vaguely mentioned the living situation of the six young offenders and how some had one or more family

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

members or relatives at or in the vicinity of Attawapiskat. Residential schools were still apparent, and the looming fear of racial conflict was high at the time. It would not be wrong to assume the difficulty of job security and pay for native Canadians. This could also mean that parenting was not ideal for these youth because there is only so much a parent can do under the harsh circumstances natives endured around that time. This analysis is mere speculation about the motivation. However, I am confident that the factors listed do play a significant role in why all these youth would commit several crimes. Ruling The court dismissed the appeals against the findings of guilt but allowed the appeals against the dispositions made by the youth court. Specifically, the court varied the custodial terms for different appellants. For R.I., D.I., and B.S., the two-year custodial terms were reduced to time already spent in custody. In the cases of L.M.K. and S.M.M., the two-year custodial terms were reduced to one year each. For N.G.M., the two-year terms were reduced to eighteen months each. Additionally, the dismissal of the appeal against the findings of guilt was said to be inadequate as the evidence against it was trivial. Legal Reasoning The legal reasoning was based on the inadequacy of predisposition reports and the need for proper consideration of the dispositions under the Young Offenders Act. The court found that the reports were lacking, but they contained some essential information, such as the inability to

control these young offenders in their home environments. The court also considered the principles of the Young Offenders Act, focusing on proportionality and the seriousness of the offenses committed. It acknowledged the need for custodial terms but deemed the two-year terms excessive in some cases, leading to their modification. The acknowledgment of the need for custodial terms was coincidentally in congruence with the Young Offenders Act and was believed to be proportionate after the fact. The reports missing significant consideration were arguably the main point of contest. That being said, it was not surprising to see an overruling of the appeal against the guilty verdict. Opinion The decision reflects a superficial consideration of the circumstances surrounding the young offenders' cases, the inadequacies of the predisposition reports, and the need for proportionate dispositions. The court's decision to modify custodial terms for some appellants appears reasonable, taking into account the varying severity of their offenses and individual backgrounds. It fails to demonstrate the significance of ensuring that young offenders are treated in a manner consistent with the principles of the Young Offenders Act while addressing the specific needs of each case. I say fails to because the disposition was only challenged due to the legislative shift in the Young Offenders Act rather than a careful consideration of genuine hardships and racial bias.

Bias within Canadian courts often manifests as discrimination and stereotyping. Indigenous individuals are disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system, particularly in terms of arrests, convictions, and incarceration rates. A multitude of factors contribute to these disparities, including socioeconomic disadvantages, limited access to quality legal representation, and systemic discrimination. These disparities not only affect the lives of Indigenous offenders but also perpetuate stereotypes that Indigenous people are more prone to criminal behavior, especially youth. Another facet of bias within the legal system is the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system. This overrepresentation results from biases against Indigenous parenting practices and the historical legacy of child removal through the residential school system. It often leads to the disintegration of Indigenous families, perpetuating cycles of trauma, poverty, and violence. Moreover, there is a clear lack of cultural competence within the legal system. Judges, lawyers, and court personnel often lack an understanding of Indigenous customs, traditions, and worldviews. This cultural gap can lead to a misinterpretation of Indigenous behavior and customs, affecting how cases are argued and sentencing decisions are made. For instance, an Indigenous offender's struggles are overlooked and downplayed extensively, leading to a failed application of consideration and a lengthy sentence for a crime that sprung out of generations of endured hate, poverty, and discrimination.

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

Unsuspectingly, this severely impacts the indigenous sense of community. The overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system disrupts family structures, further contributing to a cycle of trauma and disadvantage. Indigenous offenders face reduced opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration into their communities, which can increase recidivism. Additionally, the systemic bias undermines trust in the legal system among Indigenous communities, which can hinder efforts to address crime and conflict within these communities. The bias against Native Canadians within Canadian courts is a deeply ingrained issue that has its roots in a history of colonialism, discrimination, and cultural misunderstanding. The effects of this bias are visible in the overrepresentation of Indigenous individuals within the criminal justice system and child welfare services, perpetuating cycles of disadvantage and mistrust. Addressing this issue requires a commitment to cultural competence, increased access to quality legal representation, and a reconciliation process that acknowledges the historical wrongs done to Indigenous communities. These major hurdles that native Canadians have to go through are only amplified in criminal courts. The disposition prior to the court's appeal, and arguably after, sought to punish the native youth more than it wanted to reform. The decision can be argued to be fair after the appeal with the reduction in custodial time for all. However, there was a serious epidemic and a systematic genocide, and the misconduct of the native youth should have been carefully evaluated considering the magnitude of Aboriginal hate.

I extensively analyzed this case because all of the issues listed above were not considered in such depth. Superficially, it is easy to understand that native Canadians have a hard time and therefore should be dealt with proportionally. Once this issue is dismantled, it is hard to agree with the disposition as the issues regarding race, class, and ethnicity were approached minutely, and the modification to suit the legislation did not express the specific needs of this case.

References R. v. Richard I. [1985], 17 C.C.C. (3D) 523, 44 C.R. (3D) 168 (Ont. C.A).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version