JFCY intervened in this case where the Court was considering whether the sentence of a reprimand was appropriate when the young people were found guilty of a serious offence (unlawfully in a dwelling place).
JFCY submitted that the Court should decline to articulate a legal test for the imposition of a judicial reprimand for a number of reasons, including that such a limitation would interfere with the discretion and flexibility of a youth court judge to craft an appropriate sentence that is meaningful to the young person, taking into account not only the gravity of the offence, but the vulnerability of young people in society and in the criminal justice system in general and their diminished moral culpability, as well as their personal circumstances and characteristics, including appreciation for rehabilitation that may have occurred prior to sentencing.
In agreement with our submissions, the Court held that the lower court judge had considered the relevant factors and that a reprimand is a lawful sentence, even for a serious offence. The Court also noted that the young people had taken substantial rehabilitative measures on their own.
Ontario Court of Appeal decision
