International Law

R. v. D. B.

A bare (5-4) majority of the Supreme Court holds that a young person who commits a “presumptive offence” under the Youth Criminal Justice Act cannot be automatically be presumed to attract an adult sentence (as is mandated under the legislation). The presumption of reduced moral blameworthiness based on age - that young people are entitled to presumption of diminished moral culpability - which the majority held to be a fundamental legal principle, trumps such provisions. The burden of proving that an adult sentence is justified is on the Crown.

The dissenting judgment (written by Rothstein, J.) argues that while there is a principle of diminished moral culpability when it comes to sentencing young people, fundamental justice does not require that there always be a presumption of youth sentences for young persons, and that there is no societal consensus that such a presumption is a vital component of our notion of justice.

I’m actually inclined to the dissent’s point of view in this decision. Like it or not, this seems to be one of those cases where Parliament has clearly spoken on the issue of how young people are to be sentenced for certain serious crimes. It also seems to me that diminished moral culpability provides too sliding a scale to constitue a principle of fundamental justice, which is by its nature absolute. Diminished moral culpability can be taken into consideration when determining a fit sentence under an adult regime.

In any event, I suspect we will soon hear more fall out from our “tough on crime” government. This is a fat one hanging over the plate. As reported in the Toronto Star:

This morning’s decision leaves in doubt the federal government’s plans to further toughen up the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson had said the Conservatives planned to forge ahead with legislation that would impose automatic adult jail terms on youths convicted of certain offences, but those plans were put on hold pending today’s judgment.

More here from the CBC (with the usual lively commentary), and the Globe and Mail.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on May 16, 2008 (boomark / email).