R v Scott, 2015 ABCA 99
[13] “Youthfulness” is often recognized as a mitigating factor, because young offenders may have a lower moral culpability due to immaturity in their reasoning, irresponsibility in their decision making, and greater prospects for rehabilitation: R. v Demeter and Whitmore (1976), 1976 CanLII 1413 (ON CA), 32 CCC (2d) 379 at pp. 381-2 (Ont CA); R. v Jackson (2002), 2002 CanLII 41524 (ON CA), 163 CCC (3d) 451 (Ont CA). This factor is, however, of primary importance for first time offenders: Demeter and Whitmore; R. v Ijam, 2007 ONCA 597 at paras. 55-6, 87 OR (3d) 81; R. v Hussey (1990), 1990 CanLII 6491 (NL CA), 83 Nfld & PEIR 161 (Nfld CA). This factor becomes less important when a young adult has already had a considerable amount of experience in the criminal justice system, has been subject to various forms of probationary and correctional supervision, and has not only breached those conditions but has also re-offended: R. v Quesnel (1984), 1984 CanLII 3475 (ON CA), 14 CCC (3d) 254 at p. 255, 4 OAC 393 (CA). The respondent has had ample contact with the criminal justice system, and ample time to learn from his past mistakes. The gap between his previous offences and the one presently before the Court must be recognized, but youthfulness was not a significant mitigating factor in this case. Even the gap does not merit great weight since a large portion of it represents time that the appellant was either in custody or subject to court supervision.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire