A ‘vicious, vicious cycle’ continues

(This post is re-blogged from the Winnipeg Free Press “Crime Scene” blog.)

I have a dream about what I would do if I were to ever win the lottery or otherwise have the good fortune to sign my own paycheques, as it were.

I would travel the province and country for at least two full years to examine the youth justice system as only considerable time and complete, undivided focus, could allow.

I spoke last week to a great group of University of Winnipeg students who are studying the justice system, the court process and criminal law procedure in depth.

They’re looking closely at issues including disclosure, wrongful convictions and other serious systemic problems that can happen and, why.

It was only in the dying minutes of my time with them that I remembered the most important thing I wanted to tell them.

That being: When it comes to youth justice and all that entails in the true meaning of the word “justice,” I believe we’re failing and we either need to do better or find new tools and ways of doing things. I’m just being honest.

We’re not failing in the sense that there aren’t great people, from correctional officers and social workers to lawyers and judges, grinding it out every day, doing the best with the resources they have to work with. There are, and they don’t get nearly enough attention or accolades for their work.

I mean we’re failing systemically. In terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s stated intent to promote a just and safe society and long-term protection of the public by focusing on rehabilitation, and not punishment, as a first principle for young offenders, who have diminished moral culpability because of their ages.

More importantly, we’re failing in how the youth criminal and child-welfare systems intersect and don’t appear to share each other’s objectives.

Well, they may in principle. But in practice, as I’ve continually seen over the years, it’s a very different reality entirely.

I’ll give you just one small example of this.

I call it the ‘how kids fall into a black hole’ scenario. Followers of my blog over the years are familiar with my coverage of this issue, how youth jails become ‘warehouses’ for child-welfare and mental health concerns

This sad drama appears in various permutations, but almost always involves a bewildering and (I say) shameful lack of communication and co-ordination between Child and Family Services and the criminal youth justice system.

Interestingly, it’s seldom that you can just point a blaming finger over this issue – and that’s not my intent here, really. But it never seems to change.

Here’s this week’s example. One where it takes a little time to tease out all the complexities at play. Apologies.

It also bears mentioning that as a member of the public, one doesn’t often get the full, fleshed-out picture in youth court.

Due to CFS privacy and YCJA access provisions, there’s no opportunity to access reports and other documentation which could provide greater detail as to what’s really happening. So you’re left sometimes with what you’re left with in terms of what the various actors put on the record.

But the lack of access to documents doesn’t mean that the issues aren’t valid, that they’re somehow just misunderstandings borne out of a lack of public disclosure.

The problems are real.

In the spring of 2013, the parents of a criminally-involved 14-year-old (‘DD’ we’ll call him here) sign a voluntary placement agreement with CFS for six months. His folks have seven other kids at home and DD’s acting out causes them to ask CFS for help. CFS – Southeast CFS to be exact – steps in to take him.

He’s the only one not living in care (save for an older sister who also came into care due to a pregnancy). He has suspected FASD and ARND, cognitive issues which make him more apt to act impulsively.

In his own words: “I do before I think.”

In May, he’s handed a year of probation for a break-and-enter, failure to appear in court and failing to comply with a bail order. The sentence, given that it’s his first-ever, is a year of probation. In June, he’s arrested again for breaching probation and given a few hours of community-service work.

In September, he pleads to more probation breaches and gets more community-service hours.

What’s important to note: The probation breaches are all because he leaves the various emergency hotel shelters CFS is routinely placing him in, often returning home because he’s upset at the fact all his siblings remain there and he’s not.

Since he came into care, he’s been shunted between eight hotel placements.

It’s not all CFS’s fault for this, however. Court hears more “stable” foster placements can’t be had for him until he gets his behaviour in check. Yes, he’s 14, but some of the responsibility has to fall on his shoulders.

But arrested again in early October, DD plummets into the black hole.

It happens like this: The Crown, rightfully, won’t consent to bail him out unless CFS comes up with a better residence plan than hotel rooms for him to live in.

And it’s pretty clear to the defence it would be a hard sell to a judge to release him if there’s nothing new in DD’s bail plan to satisfy the court it just won’t all end up with him collared again and returned to the Manitoba Youth Centre.

But at the very same time, the skimpy nature of DD’s criminal past and the current charges he’s facing makes himineligible for custody at all if he were to just plead guilty and deal with his charges. In essence, we’re criminalizing a child, largely because of systemic factors beyond his control. I see that as a big problem.

And CFS, you ask? They’re hard to track down.

Now, over the years, I’ve heard more than a few defence lawyers complain that they can’t get CFS down to court to answer questions about one of their youth clients.

Despite their complaints, I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve actually seen a judge subpoena a social worker — no small thing — to attend and talk about what the heck is going on with a young person.

It happened this week in DD’s case. On Tuesday, the case comes up in the afternoon, and Judge Catherine Carlson is told his defence lawyer was asked by another judge to call DD’s social worker and get her to come to court and answer questions about the hotel “emergency” placement plan for him. The CFS worker, in the past, had been in court to support him.

The lawyer is candid, says she called and the worker replied, “she’s not available today — she’s not available any day this week and the earliest she could attend is Tuesday (the 12th). And so, she’s not available to the court.”

As well, there is no non-hotel plan available at this time, the lawyer says she was told.

The worker was asked if there was a day she could “squeeze into her schedule” but the lawyer was still awaiting a call back to see if that was possible.

Is there anyone else from the agency that could come? Carlson asks. This isn’t likely. Before her, Carlson has an in-depth forensic psychology report outlining the concerns with DD and CFS’s continued use of a hotel-placement plan for the future.

The Crown relays its position again. It would consent to DD’s bail if there was a “proper plan” in place, but, “we’re doing (DD) a failure because we keep returning him into the same poor circumstances,” the prosecutor says. The hotel placements are “not adequate.”

He says the court has the option of mandating CFS to attend.

“I think that what’s troubling to me is the worker did come down and express concerns, which is why the forensic (report) got ordered. But then she didn’t participate in the forensic and… it seems… that just at this point there’s more questions than answers… I guess we’re stuck.”

“Somebody’s got to come down and answer what’s going on here.”

Judge Carlson agrees: “To say that she’s unavailable till Tuesday is concerning knowing that there’s a young man in custody and needs a better plan.”

So, a subpoena ordering the worker into court for Thursday is drawn up.

That day, the worker duly appears, and hears now from Judge Carena Roller.

“There is, for whatever reason, a lack of plan… he’s remaining in custody when he’s not eligible for custody. That’s a problem for me,” Roller says.

The forensic report hints at the fact an undiagnosed medical or psychological issue is at play in DD’s situation, an issue preventing him from complying with his court orders and therefore prompting his return to custody.

“The irony is we don’t know that because there was no response from the agency, no background provided to the assessor,” Roller says.

Ah, the worker says, that’s not entirely true. She was in touch with the doctor who assessed DD. There was another report done. The other one wasn’t prepared for court purposes and looked at his needs in the community. The worker insists that second report was sent to the doctor who did the forensic evaluation.

Regardless, DD’s impulse control is “severely impaired,” the worker says. It’s possible medication may help calm him — but doctors won’t prescribe it until they’ve had up to three weeks to observe his behaviour. That’s been a problem because DD goes AWOL, she says.

As for where he’ll live upon release, the worker says as follows: “Placement is determined on the day of release based on what beds are available in the system. I can tell you what’s available today, but I couldn’t tell you what would be available on a different day.”

What’s available today, Roller asks.

“An emergency shelter.”

Is that 24-hour supervision?

“No. The shelter we’re talking about is a 16-bed emergency shelter where he would be expected to attend the day program (school)… we haven’t been able to register (DD) in school because he tends to be AWOL before we can stabilize a program,” the worker says.

Why aren’t we talking about a locked setting then?

“For that to happen, we need a social history and approval for that level of funding,” says the worker. “We haven’t had that yet. Now, with these reports, we’re more able to support that application. And that is definitely a plan underway.”

When asked, the worker couldn’t say what date DD’s six-month voluntary placement with CFS expires. “Probably” in the next couple of months, she says.

Roller is curious (as we maybe all should be about a child in care): Why doesn’t CFS already have a social history on DD?

The worker’s answer is evasive. “In order to apply for locked facility… we have to be able to support it by behaviours,” she says.

The hearing is then stood down for a few minutes. A behind-the-scenes discussion results in DD pleading guilty to a handful of breaches and being sentenced to a few extra hours of community service work.

In his sentencing submissions, the Crown sounds unconvinced anything will change. Some of DD’s issues are systemic, he says. Candidly, some are also his as an individual, he says.

“Best we can hope is he goes on his way and starts to listen to his probation officer.”

DD’s defence lawyer tells Roller the youth is confused and upset at the fact he’s not allowed to be at home with his family and that’s why he flees from his hotel placements.

“He thinks that if he acts out and leaves these shelters they’ll give in and let him go home – that’s not the case,” she says.

By now, he’s spent three weeks of his life in custody. The lawyer questions how it appears the CFS position on finding a proper placement is somewhat incumbent on him, based on what the social worker has said. It shouldn’t be “all on him” to prove his way out of the emergency hotel shelter situation, the lawyer says.

“It’s turning out to be… a vicious, vicious cycle.”

In addressing DD, Roller seemed to agree.

“I know that you haven’t had a stable placement since you came into agency care,” she told him. “And I’m convinced that the people who are working with you aren’t talking to each other like we need them to do. We need you to have a team in place to work together and I hope that’s what’s going to happen going forward. Because we need your behaviour to improve,” she said.

She also reminded him of his CFS worker’s implicit promise to the court to get moving on finding a more palatable solution for him, to find him at least a place, “where you can unpack.”

“And she’s going to do all of that right away because we don’t want you bouncing around,” said Roller.

———————–

If you’re still with me by now, you’ll have perhaps noted some of the questions DD’s case — but one of many hundreds of youth court cases in Manitoba — raises.

At the top of my mind are:

  • How can a child be taken into agency care and the agency doesn’t have a “social history” on him months into his stay?
  • What exactly is a “social history?” It was clear his parents called in CFS, so why don’t they have such information at hand?
  • How can a social worker be subpoenaed into court and not have exact answers (like the date of expiry of DD’s placement agreement) at hand about the case she’s there to talk about?
  • Is a hotel room for a potentially mentally challenged and certainly confused teen boy really the best we can do for him? It personally strikes me as disingenuous to say it’s somewhat incumbent on DD, given the circumstances as presented, to “earn” his way out of the emergency shelter system. If it’s the case that it is, then isn’t that a problem? It strikes me DD was stopped into care by way of a voluntary agreement with no case planning as to what to do with him once he was there.
  • What prevented the two systems from “talking” to each other in this case and perhaps finding a better — or at least more expedient — outcome here? Resources? Stubbornness?

We can say “justice” has been served in the sense that a sentence was meted out, but I think we all know it wasn’t here. I fully expect to see DD back on the court docket in the coming months.

There’s many, many more questions, obviously. Finding answers without taking a long and focused look will be impossible.

The “vicious, vicious cycle” will continue until there’s pressure enough to end it.

-30-

A further example of youth jails as child-welfare warehouses, or the girl who became a hot potato PART II

Screen Shot 2013-03-27 at 10.56.14 PM “It’s not recommended. It’s not a polite term. It’s not a recommendation —  It’s an order!” — Provincial Court Judge Marvin Garfinkel

Last Thursday, I wrote about this girl (do read before continuing further) — who’s being held at the Manitoba Youth Centre because no suitable Child and Family Services placement can be found for her.

This, despite the fact Canada’s youth justice laws prohibit young people being detained for child-welfare concerns. The girl isn’t an ordinary case. She requires a specialized placement because of her behavioural and other issues.

Again, she’s just 13 and a permanent ward of CFS.

A few readers contacted me via email and other means to express their concern and, in some cases, disgust, that this was happening.

The case, as the previous post made clear, drew Judge Marvin Garfinkel’s ire, largely because it was clear the powers that be in the CFS or justice system were either unable or unwilling to follow a court’s order regarding her placement, one issued months ago.

Her probation order specifically prohibits her from being placed in a hotel room by CFS or any other agency.

But yet, one of the reasons she was back in custody at a jail is because she was placed in a hotel room after the probation order — a legal document setting out supervision requirements as determined by a judge, not CFS or the province — was issued.

[More on this below. However, note carefully the bolded section of the Crown’s statement to the court].

Thursday, her regular lawyer isn’t in court, but an experienced associate of his is.

Garfinkel, sitting again, is told the two advocates spent the afternoon Wednesday working on a motion which was prepped and ready to file — ostensibly trying to get the ‘provincial director’ to act — and more discussion with Crown.

Also in court this day are a lawyer for the Island Lake CFS agency and a worker, and also a representative from Winnipeg’s B&L Resources for Children, Youth and Families.

There’s still no placement for her, Garfinkel is told.

Still, the Crown is ready to consent to her release.

Garfinkel is told the agency has made attempts, but there is no placement — they are looking into a number of issues.

But, there’s no grounds to keep her in custody as far as I’m concerned, her defence lawyer says.

The lawyer for CFS then steps to the podium and fills the judge in on what’s now happening.

Here’s the bulk of the exchange, verbatim.

CFS Lawyer (CFS): The agency has been working quite a bit on trying to find a suitable placement for [girl] — obviously there’s some high needs involved here.

Garfinkel: Is the child for whom there is an existing order of judge Harvie?

CFS: Yes. I’ll just give Your Honour some more background.

Garfinkel: I recall this.

CFS: This was the matter where Judge Harvie ordered there was to be no placement in a hotel room.

Garfinkel: Yes.

CFS: And you brought to [Lawyer’s] attention. Just so your honour knows the full story, [The defence lawyer] also spoke with … the provincial director yesterday, and brought this to his attention and he’s working to find a placement as well — he’s now aware that she’s not to be placed in a hotel. We also spoke with Corey La Berge from the Child Advocate’s office and [the office] has a worker assigned … and Mr. La Berge is making attempts to assist with a placement at well.

[The worker] has thoroughly exhausted institutional placements. All of them advise that either they don’t have room or they’ll be able to meet her criteria. However, As indicated, there is a case manager here from B&L and a possible foster placement. I’ve been speaking with them this morning. It is anticipated a timeline of about a week to transition [the girl] to that home should that be a suitable placement. It sounds like a good plan is in place there. Of course, the issue we’re faced with today is [the girl’s] imminent release today. [Another person] has made some inquiries to [a program], which is also a placement — they advise they have a place available but they’re, as we speak, reviewing [the girl’s] application, which I should point out was actually made a couple of months ago and no response was ever received from them. So they are re-reviewing that to determine if that spot can be taken by [the girl]. And we are also waiting back to hear if any possible Places of Safety can possibly take her today.

Obviously we don’t want her to remain in custody anymore than anybody else. At the same time, we want to make sure she has a suitable placement to go to. So that is where we are today. My hope is that we can find at least a temporary placement as soon as possible today so that she can then be transitioned into the other home.

Garfinkel: OK. Thank you for your comments.

Crown: With respect to the matter on the docket … it involves three counts from a date of Jan. 24th of this year [assault with weapon and two breaches]. The Crown will be entering a stay of proceedings. It’s because of what’s already been touched upon by my learned friend. The order of Judge Harvie specifically stated that a residence was supposed to be found and not a hotel placement. This incident occurred while [the girl] was a resident at [a downtown hotel]. After my read of the file yesterday, based on that fact alone, I decided that a stay of proceedings will be entered on that matter. And for that reason.

They then proceed with a consent release hearing — she’s officially ordered freed on an undertaking. The undertaking says she must reside as directed by CFS but not be a hotel placement [but the probation order indicates it’s the provincial director’s responsibility].

Garfinkel: I want to thank you all for coming.

Yesterday, we were a little disturbed by circumstances that existed. Quite candidly we didn’t have the information that we have now. And I think you have to remember that this facility is a criminal justice facility. It no longer is a place of shelter under the old Child Welfare Act and the Juvenile Delinquent’s Act. Parliament has made a clear-cut distinction between criminal proceedings and child-protection proceedings. Now, many times, the people involved have both child-protection issues and criminal justice issues. But we have to try and delineate what’s what and what’s what. In this instance, we have this young person accused of committing crimes. She is absolutely presumed to be innocent. She is not to be detained unless the Crown can show cause why detention is necessary. Moreover — she is bound by a probation order which requires her to reside in a certain place. That place is a positive with a negative attachment.

The positive is: she is to reside where directed by the provincial director. The provincial director is a criminal justice official whose office is created by federal legislation. The negative is, that place of residence is not to be a hotel. If she doesn’t like that order, she can instruct her lawyer to appeal it. But until it’s appealed — that order is valid and it must be complied with. None of you here, as I understand it, are representing the provincial director. But each of you may have some conversation with a provincial director and should tell that official that you’re now aware of the order. And the provincial director shouldn’t try to convince you or persuade you to disobey the order …

Defence lawyer: The no-hotel clause came from a [forensic psychologist] as part of a forensic assessment.

Garfinkel: I’m not arguing. Judge Harvie put it into the order. It’s a valid order until it’s repealed or reversed. It must be … if I — let’s say I wanted to do something silly, like say, ‘all of you are in contempt, you’re going to jail,’ – You go to jail. The Sheriff’s officers will physically take you there until the order has changed. 

Lawyer: I just want to make it clear to the agency that that’s not likely to change — even if it comes before a judge because it’s been recommended, it’s be ordered. ..

Garfinkel: It’s not recommended. It’s not a polite term. It’s not a recommendation — [bangs fist down] It’s an order. It’s terrible! (obviously referring to how the probation order hasn’t been obeyed). 

Lawyer: … I’m just saying if anybody thinks there’s going to be a variation to the probation order, everybody needs to keep in mind that there were very good reasons for Judge Harvie ordering that. And it’s not likely that she would change that is what I’m saying.

—-

So there you have it. For weeks, this girl has been languishing in jail, and suddenly, everyone’s now on board trying to find a solution.

I can’t speak to what caused the dramatic turnaround in attention the girl’s case suddenly received, but it’s heartening to see.

That said, it was clear her ethically and legally-questionable jail stint wasn’t likely coming to a quick end at the end of Thursday’s hearing. Efforts were being made, but no placement was available yet.

Now, what I hadn’t realized when I wrote the original piece about this case was that she was in jail partly because of breaches and other charges stemming from an illegal placement in a hotel room taking place more than a month after Judge Harvie’s original order forbid the provincial director (and by virtue of the order, CFS) from placing her in a hotel.

Nothing’s perfect in this world. I get it. And I suspect that the high needs of the girl’s case played a major role in CFS or the provincial director just trying to find her somewhere to stay in the interim.

But the fact is, this case sends a number of concerning messages to the general public.

Not least of those being: If the powers in place to enforce court orders can’t or won’t obey them for whatever reason, then how can we expect anyone else — like offenders — to follow them either?

It’s a black mark on the administration of justice, in my view.

The courts and offenders often wear blame directed at them from the public and the media when people placed on probation reoffend.

I think it’s clear from this one small case that the blame may lie elsewhere, sometimes.

And, more troubling: the above shows how for some of Manitoba’s roughly 10,000 kids in the care of the state, it’s not all that difficult to fall into black holes not of their making.

-30-

A further example of youth jails as child-welfare warehouses, or the girl who became a hot potato

Screen Shot 2013-03-27 at 10.56.14 PMAs a golden rule, Canada’s youth criminal justice system is not to be used as a substitute for the child-welfare system.

But it happens. And it happens here in Manitoba. And it happens for a lot of reasons.

Apparent lethagy by social-services and other government agencies stretched beyond thin in terms of resources is among them.

Sometimes, it appears it’s ineptitude.

Other times, maybe the problem presented is too complex for the system to handle with what’s available in terms of resources.

Today, a concerning case came to light in youth court. Concerning in a systemic sense.

It involves a troubled 13-year-old girl, a permanent ward of an aboriginal CFS agency who is a young person who is clearly in need of specialized treatment and assistance due to her cognitive and behavioural problems.

For weeks, she’s been sitting in custody at the Manitoba Youth Centre despite everyone agreeing she could be released on bail.

The problem, as I came to see it: nobody appears able to figure out whose problem she is.

There were few answers to this today, even with two CFS workers subpoenaed to be there in hopes of getting to the bottom of the issue.

Ultimately, they weren’t asked to utter a word.

Here’s what’s happening.

In December, she was placed on a probation order by Judge Mary Kate Harvie.

One of the conditions of that order — and this is key — was that she “reside as directed by the provincial director [of youth corrections]” but specifically states she is not to be placed in an emergency CFS placement hotel room.

Remember this. It’s key to what’s coming below.

She’s released, but breaches by the end of January and is brought back into custody at the Manitoba Youth Centre. A bail conference is held and a placement for her is ‘arranged’ at a specialized group home. That placement fails to materialize and it may never.

Because there’s no placement there, she’s still being held in a jail, in my view, illegally and unethically.

Her case — and the one immediately prior where another lawyer was requesting a subpoena for CFS workers who were utterly unresponsive to calls for information about her juvenile client — set Judge Marvin Garfinkel off on one of his famous rants.

Unfortunately, much of it was directed at the girl’s defence lawyer. While I don’t necessarily agree with his approach, Garfinkel — a stickler as a youth court judge when it comes to following the legislation [gasp!] — had a lot of interesting things to say.

Garfinkel himself authorized her release with consent of the Crown on March 15. But she’s still there, in a jail. CFS, it appears, is unable to find another place for her for an unknown reason.

And the provincial director of youth corrections? Nobody in court even seems to know who that is, exactly.

Here’s the lengthy discussion which took place today, mostly verbatim where appropriate.

Garfinkel, to defence lawyer: What have you done to get the agency to find a placement?

[There’s then some discussion of whether the Children’s Advocate’s office is involved. It is. She’s been appointed an advocate, who wasn’t in court today to, you know, advocate, for her. ]

Garfinkel, to lawyer: Why not make a motion to compel the agency to do what it’s supposed to do [in the Court of Queen’s Bench]? “The agency is supposed to step in when when children are in need of protection. The agency has a responsibility to provide a place of appropriate shelter … Judge Harvie has mandated that a hotel is not an appropriate shelter … so consequently, somebody has to find her a proper place.”

Then Garfinkel’s attention turns from CFS to the mysterious “provincial director” as named in the probation order, and we start to get down to what may be the real issue.

“Why isn’t the provincial director finding a placement? You mean in the whole province of Manitoba there isn’t one proper placement that would be willing to accept this child? I’m not going to believe that.”

Lawyer: I have difficulty believing that as well.

Garfinkel: Then do something.

The judge then spoke of how with the advent of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it forbid jails from becoming warehouses for kids due to CFS-related concerns.

Garfinkel: “This detention facility is not longer a place of shelter for child-welfare recipients … It used to be called the Child Welfare Act and agencies had to look after the welfare of young people — as it was determined that putting young people in this detention facility — which is designed for young offenders — is not appropriate for young people in need of care and treatment. So they go someplace else.”

It’s not good, Garfinkel said, to have criminals mingled with kids simply in need of care.

They pick up certain skills and habits and mindsets that young people shouldn’t have.

Then it appears the judge realizes he’s coming close to falling into a trap he should avoid for a host of sound reasons: that is, he’s becoming the de facto advocate for the girl. His voice booms.

“I’m not advocating for this young person. What I’m trying to do is stimulate counsel to be adversarial. Don’t sit back and tell me the problem. I can’t solve it today. But you can take steps to try and get a solution.

I’m yelling. I apologize. I allowed my emotions to get involved. I’m going to take a breath and speak lower …

What you have to do [defence lawyer] is take steps. You, defence counsel for this young person, have to take steps.

You make motions, you write the Children’s Advocate — is the agency [Island Lake CFS] — governed by the Northern Authority or the Southern Authority? (It’s the northern) … then get them involved. The Northern Authority is supposed to supervise individual agencies.

Look. The Child and Family Services are under a microscope right not as a result of the Sinclair inquiry. They don’t need nor do they want any bad publicity.

You file a motion in the appropriate court — the newspapers check for the list of the filings every day. 

[Not necessarily true for child-protection or youth matters as we have limited access but…]

The agency will get moving. But the agency — as I understand what you told me — doesn’t have control of this matter. What you told me is that the probation order says that she is to reside as directed by the provincial director. The provincial director has control.

Lawyer: I think strictly speaking, that is correct but I would suggest … pragmatically the provincial director takes their lead from the agency’s suggestion.

Garfinkel: I don’t accept that. Look at what Parliament did in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Compare it to the old Young Offender’s Act and the even older Juvenile Delinquent’s Act — Parliament completely differentiated the criminal from the civil and child protection. At one time they were all mixed together. They didn’t know what it was.

That’s no longer the case. When Parliament says the provincial director — who is a criminal justice official — has a role to play in the placement of this child, that supersedes the guardian responsibility of an agency.

It has to. For the limited time that the criminal justice system has control over this young person’s life. You have to get the actors acting. What do you want me to do today?

Lawyer: We have no placement for [her]

Garfinkel: That’s not acceptable. The Crown is not showing cause for detention except to the extent that she has a residence.

Lawyer: A bail conference was called and suggestions made for her placement. We could call another, but “at this point, the agency has provided no options except …”

Garfinkel: Based on the information you’ve provided me, it’s not up to CFS to provide a placement. Do you want me to ignore Judge Harvie’s order?

Lawyer: No.

Garfinkel: I’m not going to reverse it or change it … so then comply with it. If we were talking in a back room, I wouldn’t use polite language. The provincial director has to get up off his chair, or her chair and find a placement. You can’t ignore Judge Harvie’s order. How can you do that?

Lawyer: It’s not an effort to ignore Judge Harvie’s order …

Garfinkel: Well then, why isn’t the provincial director providing a placement? There has to be a placement. If not, make a motion in the appropriate tribunal. It’s adversarial.

Lawyer: Of course.

Garfinkel: Is the Crown taking a position on this?

[An audible deep sigh is heard in the court — it’s unclear if this emerged from the Crown.]

Garfinkel: As I understand it, the Crown is consenting to release provided there’s an appropriate placement.

Crown attorney: That is our — yes.

Garfinkel: So I would have thought an appropriate placement would have been found the day after Judge Harvie made the order. Who disobeys a court order?

Lawyer: She hasn’t been in custody that long, Your Honour.

Garfinkel: I don’t care.

Lawyer: She has been in custody for longer than I would think is appropriate, but she hasn’t been in custody since the day that the order was put in place. She was released initially.

Garfinkel: [Mr. Lawyer,] I have to tell you, I’m very naive. When I was practising law, when a judge gave an order  – I don’t care if it was from the provincial court, the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Court of Appeal — if a judge made an order, we busted our backs — If I was talking to you privately, I might use different words — but we would bust our backs to comply with that order.

Now, the provincial director works with the criminal justice system. How can the provincial director ignore Judge Harvie’s order?

Did the provincial director make a motion on his or her own behalf to say, ‘Hey, we can’t comply with this order, Judge Harvie, please change it. Is there any such motion?

Lawyer: No.

Garfinkel: So get the provincial director to do his or her job. Why are these two people [the subpoenaed CFS workers] sitting in court? You want me to yell at them?

Lawyer: No. I’m not suggesting that.

Garfinkel: Good. Because I’m not going to. I’m yelling at you.

[The discussion continues along the same vein for a bit…]

Garfinkel: Who is the provincial director? That person should be in the courtroom. Why isn’t that person — I’m not using the word contempt – but I’m (still wondering) why isn’t’ the order being complied with. What’s the answer?

Lawyer: I don’t know.

Garfinkel: Well you should know. Do you know who the provincial director is?

Lawyer: I do not.

Garfinkel: Why not? Isn’t that — I have to say I’m a little bit frustrated inside. Just before, we dealt with another case where it seems things aren’t going smoothly. But it’s adversarial. You’ve got to fight.

Lawyer: I appreciate that.

Garfinkel: [Remands the case for one day.] We’ll see what happens then. Thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to vent.

—-

So, what can we take away from the above?

Reflecting on it, I see Garfinkel wasn’t haranguing the lawyer per se, but imparting wisdom: Fight. Advocate. Even embarrass the powers that be, if necessary, into doing something.

The lawyer — who I’ve seen take on a number of tough cases for clients and duke them out in court in the recent past — may be newer to the profession, but he’s anything but lazy.

But from my perspective — that of a concerned member of the lowly public, there’s so much more to this exchange.

You can take away from it what you will.

But how is it at all right in any way that this one officer of the court has to go to such lengths to force powerful government agencies into upholding the law and doing what’s ordered of them in the first place?

At the end of the day, it was he, the defence lawyer, present in court, accompanied by two child-protection workers there under force of a subpoena, in hopes of seeing some action on the case.

The provincial director of youth corrections, whomever that may be (curious how nobody knows), or his or her agent, certainly wasn’t.

And the girl? Just a factor, a sad variable in a massive machine which, to her, likely seems more like a system of hot potato then one of actual justice.

CFS can’t act because it’s the provincial director’s problem to act on, but many are under the impression that his/her office takes its lead from CFS.

And in the end, it falls to the courts to sort out the mess, but judicial orders get countermanded or ignored and nobody cares.

And we wonder why kids wind up returning time and again to youth jails, and then adult prisons?

-30-

‘Your Honour, I implore you, don’t let this all be for nothing’

Screen Shot 2012-10-29 at 8

Many times in our justice system, the aftershocks of criminal violence go unreported and are therefore can be under-appreciated for their gravity.

Presented below — verbatim to the best of my ability — is the victim impact statement from a 55-year-old dad of three who was brutally attacked by a gang-involved city teenager.

His attacker, by my reading of the case, essentially ‘duped’ the man into coming back to a friend’s place so he could be viciously robbed and beaten within an inch of his life — and then dumped to die in a back lane.

Today, for the first time, the facts of this alarming case were aired in court.

(Article is here).

The teen (now a young man of 18 years old) is facing a seven-year prison sentence today. He was just a couple months shy of his 18th birthday when he set upon the victim.

His total take from his violent venture: $50.

For the unsuspecting victim, however, his misplaced trust led to major and debilitating injuries,nearly complete loss of income and a once productive and seemingly ‘normal’ life thrust into chaos — perhaps forever.

He couldn’t personally write the words presented below, which speak for themselves and are to be taken as his words except where noted.

They were inked with the consultation and help of family members obviously still reeling that someone could be so cruel.

But again, they speak for themselves. Here they are, for the record.

—-

On Oct. 15, 2011, I was robbed and beaten over the head with a weapon consisting of some type of a blunt instrument and left unconscious, bleeding to die in a back lane.

I was discovered by a nearby resident and the authorities were called on my behalf.

Once arrived at Health Sciences Centre I was taken into surgery for a significant brain injury. There was bleeding on both sides of my brain and the surgery was to relieve the pressure on my brain from the swelling.

I had blood streaming from every possible orifice. My eyes, my nose, my mouth and my ears … unrecognizable —

(The niece interjects, briefly):

It was horrific (seeing him).

In addition to the trauma to my brain itself I had three skull bones that were broken: an orbital bone and both cheekbones. I had many teeth knocked out and in addition to those others that are damaged and in need of repair.

I had bruised ribs and a bruised hip as well. I spent close to two months in the Health Sciences Centre, from Oct. 16 to Dec. 2, 2011 whereupon I was transferred to Riverview Health Centre in a specialize brain injury rehab program where I stayed for another three months.

For the the first three weeks of my stay at HSC I was in and out of a coma state.

I had no self-functioning in any capacity. I was fed intravenously, I had medical implements for urination and bowel movements. Once becoming aware of my surroundings I continued to have to wear diapers and use the bag for urination.

I had to continue to have a feeding tube as I could not swallow, and a ventilator for breathing.

During this time I could still not walk or talk. I was tied down to my bed because I was involuntarily thrashing as my brain was attempting to heal in order to ensure I did not do further damage to my body. So I could not even scratch if I was itchy.

This was the most traumatic time to me as a person, as it is from this time on that I have  some very clear recollections of the experiences in the hospital.

But I wasn’t able to tell anybody how I was feeling.

I have lost over 50 pounds.

At this point in time in my recovery I have slurred speech, memory loss, extreme confusion. I seem at times to drift in and out of time, similar to a stroke or alzheimer’s sufferer.

I had thought my deceased uncle and aunt to visit … but really only another uncle and I had only been talking about past shared memories.

I have undergone speech therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy during my stay at Riverview Health Centre. And I continue with this on an outpatient basis.

I have several issues with my sense of balance — my energy is low and I tire very easily. I still have issues with my throat and trouble swallowing due to swelling and scarring and damage from the tracheostomy surgery.

I have trouble reading and writing. I have trouble searching for words to describe myself.

I cannot drive a vehicle any longer. I’m not sure as to if or when this will ever be possible in the future. I have a permanent five-inch scar on the left side of my skull.

My hair will most likely never grow back in that area. I have been left with permanent seizures.

(His niece, reading the statement, interrupts):

Also — I’m not sure if we can interject — but one of the things that has happened as a result is he’s been left with these seizures, and he’s been in hospital since because he almost choked to death because he started seizing and the family didn’t know what to do for him at that point. They’ve since receive medical training — how to … first aid and triage response when and if this occurs again.

He’s been left with permanent seizures, and he’s been advised that this is due to the brainwaves on the right side of his brain are slower in comparison to that of the left side of his brain.

He’s been started on the following medications: [Drool-minimization meds]  — He was drooling all over himself and it couldn’t be controlled. [Seizure control meds]. Aspirin as a blood thinner, vitamins etc.

I might add that my uncle was in perfect health before this. He was a 30-plus year contraction worker — very very strongAnd if he wasn’t in the physical condition that he was, he never, probably, would have survived these injuries. That’s because he was in impeccable health before this happened.

The emotional and financial ramifications are going to be hard to talk about, because obviously it’s very personal in nature, the niece said.

(The statement continues):

I feel useless. I feel humiliation as I’m not the man I once was. There are few things I am able to do on my own, for myself. I feel humiliated that the people I love saw me in such a vulnerable state.

Before I was attacked, I was a very composed person. I could always control my emotions. I didn’t even cry seeing my Gramma waste away from cancer. I didn’t cry when I got married or when my children were born. I did not cry at funerals.

I cannot control my emotions any longer. I cry all the time. I cry when I see people come to visit me. I cry when they leave. I cry when I get to go home on weekends and when I see my children. I am embarrassed by my speech; by the sound of my voice.

My voice does not sound like my voice anymore. I am very frustrated at most times because I cannot concentrate for any length of time. I have slow reaction-response time, physically, mentally and verbally.

I know what I want to say. I hear what I want to say, but it doesn’t come out right. I’m constantly searching for the right words. I’m quick to anger due to extreme frustration because I can’t just think.

I’m extremely paranoid and anxious and I’m constantly worried about people stealing what I have left.

When my family visits me at Riverview and we’re trying to enjoy time in the lounge, I am constantly going back to my room, checking to make sure nothing is gone.

I am scared my life will never be mine again. I had a 30-plus year career in construction. I have assisted to build some of the biggest monuments/buildings in Winnipeg.

One of my last projects was as foreman on the new James Richardson Winnipeg International Airport that I’m very proud of.

Will I ever be able to read and understand blueprints again?

Will I ever be able to exert the physical capacity I once did in life and on the job.

Will I ever be able to go play ball with my sons or skate with them?

Will I ever be able to even go to my sons’ hockey games as a spectator?

I can’t climb stairs right now.

I was the main income in my home — the main provider.

My wife and children have already struggled and suffered trying to make ends meet while I’ve been out of work awaiting sick benefits to begin.

I made around $60,000/year annually. I have lost at least $30,000 in wages as this is being written.

Sick benefits run out. Then what am I supposed to do?

I always had a Freedom 55 plan. Can I enjoy the golden years of retirement the way I have planned on?

I am restricted to my home, basically, when I go home. I cannot enjoy the things I once did with friends and family. Can I even do my duties at home?

I took care of my home and my yard. It’s my pride. And we have been faced with worrying that we may lose the house at some point.

Everything I have worked for. RRSP’s dried out and I did not carry critical injury insurance on my mortgage because I didn’t think anything like this would ever happen.

If I can never go back to work, my family will be living under the poverty line for income.

Will my marriage withstand this kind of pressure?

What if I start to remember the attack itself? Who will help me? What will happen to me?

What if I can never drive again? My freedom is gone. My ability to get back and forth to work is gone.

Again, that same thought: Will I ever work again? Who will cover costs for me for future expenses, for medications, home care, if I need any special equipment to return to my life at home? Even Handi-Transit expenses if that’s how I’m going to have to get around?

My family has their own lives. That can’t be there to drive me everywhere and my wife will have to be at work. Will I ever get to enjoy teaching my boy to drive?

It’s his 18th birthday (next spring) … will I even be home?

My daughter is only 13. She needs her dad. I have only seen my oldest son a couple of times since this attack because he couldn’t bring himself to look at me like this.

Can any amount of money really replace what I’ll be losing?

(The niece):

He just wanted to conclude by saying that it was a horrific attack on himself. Physically, emotionally and mentally — his life will never be the same. Why should (the accused’s) be the same?

He would like to say: ‘Please, Your Honour, I implore you, don’t let this all be for nothing.

Thank you for this opportunity to share the personal side of this attack and not just the legal aspects. Thank you for your consideration.

I would like to close by saying — if we can, because this is a victim impact statement and we want (the accused) to know how we feel and what has happened.

(The niece, speaking directly to the accused):

I looked at your family back there and I’m very sad for them. Because you’re going to be taken away from them, from their lives. Ok? This man here? This is my grampa. This is my grampa. And when Ms. Carson (The Crown) was reading … you said you wanted to speak to your grampa (when police arrested him and brought him in for an interview). Your grampa was who you wanted. And you know what? I understand that. Because my grampa is the man I go to when I’m down, when I need help, when I’m hurting. He’s the one I want.

“When I ever accomplish something wonderful, he’s the first person I want to tell. But I want to ask you — when you kept on saying, ‘the old guy,’ that you robbed and you beat, what if that old guy was your grandfather? How would you feel? That would destroy you obviously because you obviously love your grandfather a ton if he was the one that you wanted to be there with you.

And look at your pretty cousins back there. What if some boy did to them what you did to your girlfriend? Wouldn’t that outrage you? I think it would.

And you know what, I just want to say to you personally – I really hope you take this time to take advantage of all the programs they’ll have to offer you to get off of drugs and get out of trouble with gangs and maybe get an education so that when you do come out, you can be productive, and other families won’t have to suffer like we’ve suffered. Because my uncle will never be the same.

(The victim’s brother also addressed him):

We’re not a vindictive family. No matter what happens with this, nothing’s going to change my brother. You have a chance to rehab yourself, make something of your life and I strongly recommend you do that as a young man because my brother doesn’t have that chance.

-30-

As an aside, I can find no official statement from Winnipeg police acknowledging this incident ever happened.

Bill C-10 and the YCJA: an important note

Sgt. Smith to teen shoplifter, by phone: ‘This is Sgt. Smith of the Winnipeg police. I understand you are being held for shoplifting. I am hereby warning you.’

Teen shoplifter: ‘Huh?’

Smith: ‘I am warning you.’

Teen: ‘OK?’

-end conversation

[Three days later, different store, same cop, same shoplifter, by phone]

Sgt. Smith: ‘This is Sgt. Smith of the Winnipeg police. I understand you are being held for shoplifting. I am hereby cautioning you.’

Teen: OK.

Sgt. Smith: ‘You are hereby cautioned.’

-end conversation

It’s often stated that the kids who actually wind up in custody at the youth centre and have to go before a judge are just the top of an iceberg in the city in terms of the number of offences committed by kids.

Under the YCJA — and its current focus on rehabilitation and ‘meaningful consequences’ for kid offenders — there’s a huge number of diversion tactics, known as extra-judical measures and sanctions that are often used as a first, last resort to scare non-violent kids from crime and keep them out of the court system.

Will the police consider these measures for me?

Yes. A police officer must consider using an extrajudicial measure if the offence is non-violent and if you have not been found guilty of a previous offence.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act sets out as a key principle that it should be presumed that an extrajudicial measure will be sufficient to hold a young person accountable for his or her behaviour.

These sanctions can range on a quasi-sliding scale from a police warning and caution [as evidenced above from a real-life example] to Crown warnings and cautions and voluntary referrals to programming etc.

In other words, it’s a number of ‘first, last chances’ before actually being charged with a crime and having to come to court.

While Bill C-10, the federal government’s omnibus crime bill, won’t remove these measures [that I know of], it does propose to make a major change that should prove revealing regarding their effectiveness.

Judges will now be told of them in court, and Crowns can rely on prior uses of extrajudicial measures as a reason for jail in indictable [serious offences]

Today, I’ve yet to hear of a judge be told of a kid’s pre-criminal history, of efforts made by police and justice officials to give them chances to get right or else.

The YCJA reads as follows today:

Clause 173: Relevant portion of subsection 39(1):
39. (1) A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under section 42 (youth sentences) unless
(c) the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt under this Act or the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985; or …
And is set to be changed to:
A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under section 42 (youth sentences) unless
(c) the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of either extrajudicial sanctions or of findings of guilt or of both under this Act or the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985; or

It’s another, dare I say, clever way of the federal government to try and put some sharper teeth into our youth justice laws.

It’s also one I have yet to hear word one about.

The question is: does so-called small crime like shoplifting pave the way towards more substantive offences?

Some authorities say yes — and the tale of ‘Burglar Jimmy’ is one example of this.

The only issue I can see with the proposed rule is that now cops and Crowns will have to keep detailed records of how many times they gave Jimmy a chance before he burned down the house or mugged the maid. I’m not 100 per cent sure they do right now.

[See comment below].

-30-

As an aside: Could we please legislate in C-10 the addition of that peculiar British vernacular where being convicted of a crime, or getting arrested is referred as: “Got done for?”

Example: “I got done for drink drive when I was 18 and never got my license back,” said Ms. Butterfarthing.

Abdul Jemei, the YCJA and fear

(Twitter)

Mike McIntyre of the mighty Freep clicked out a tweet today about a story that appeared Sunday in the broadsheet by Sandy Klowak.

The story had to do with the city’s latest homicide victim, Abdul Jemei, and how even in death, he was able to help his family out.

While the stories about Jemei have focused largely on him, his life and his background, there’s been little said about the people accused of killing him, nor (possibly the most unanswered question of all time), why he was killed.

Doing the usual court scan today, I came across the name of the 16-year-old boy who police have charged with second-degree murder for Jemai’s stabbing death.

My heart went cold.

It’s not the first, second nor even third time this kid’s made the news.

I last wrote about him roughly three years ago in connection to a case that had me shaking my head over the two years I covered it. Here’s how it started.

Boy, 13, charged with raping and beating girl

Winnipeg Free Press
Tue Sep 9 2008
Page: B2
Section: City
Byline: James Turner

A 13-year-old boy accused of raping, repeatedly battering and leaving an Internet “friend” bleeding in a Portage Avenue building has been released from custody.

The boy is charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm after he and the 13-year-old victim — a friend he met on the Internet — had been out drinking and hanging out with other friends downtown.

Early Aug. 8, the two wound up in a stairwell of a downtown building where the boy allegedly made unwanted sexual advances toward the girl. When she refused to co-operate, he is alleged to have dragged her by the legs down two flights of stairs before repeatedly beating her and viciously sexually assaulting her.

He fled the scene. Police found the girl the next morning and took her to hospital.

Crown attorney Victoria Cornick said the girl suffered broken teeth and severe swelling to her face and other parts of her body.

The boy was arrested the same day and confessed in a videotaped statement to police, Cornick said.

The Crown was opposed to his release, arguing he’s a high-risk individual who won’t obey court orders.

The boy’s lawyer blamed his actions and classification as “high-risk” on his upbringing on a northern reserve where kids are largely unsupervised.

“It’s a universal problem in the community,” Bill Armstrong said.

On the night in question, the boy was said to have been angry over others making fun of his “manhood” and bravery when he refused to fight older boys involved in a street gang.

The youth was released on bail last Friday after provincial court Judge Lee Ann Martin ruled that the boy’s CFS group home could properly supervise him while his case is in the courts.

Martin ordered the boy to abide by a curfew, and to have no contact with the victim, possess no weapons and seek treatment for substance abuse.

-30-

The boy was ultimately convicted for this crime — and the facts only seemed to get worse — in July 2009.

I covered it on radio for the CBC, but can’t find a related web story. Luckily, colleague Gabrielle Giroday was also there.

I’m not joking when I say the efforts that went into sentencing this kid (from the Crown, defence, social-workers, probation officers etc…) were near-legendary.

Countless court hearings to determine the best sentence for him and (ostensibly) the public, followed by judicial reviews of his time in the community after the custodial part of his sentence ended.

Still, he’s been charged more times than a marathoner’s iPod.

The following list is practically boilerplate these days:

  • Teen given every benefit of the youth criminal justice system’s rehabilitative aspects. Check.
  • Multiple accusations of probation/court order breaches. Check.
  • Out on bail and facing weapons and breach charges at the time of the Jemei murder allegation. Check.

Breach Conditions of Youth Criminal Justice Act sentence: Jan 16

Breach conditions of release to reside as directed: 10 to 14 Feb.

Possess weapon for a dangerous purpose: Jan 16 (he was handed a five-year mandatory weapons prohibition for the sexual assault)

While I can take some comfort that Mr. Jemei may not have died completely in vain, I feel horrible for his family.

And some small part of me (the pessimistic, fearful one) can’t help but wonder how many other kids like the one accused here roam our streets with virtual impunity.

The problem is that we just don’t ever seem to know until it’s too late.

-30-

Mr. Swan goes to Vancouver

 

Andrew Swan is Manitoba's justice minister and attorney general

 

Interesting news statement from the provincial Justice minister a few moments ago.

STRENGTHENING YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT TO HEAD MANITOBA’S AGENDA AT JUSTICE MINISTERS’ MEETINGS: SWAN
– – –
Province Also Supports Tougher Penalties for Johns to Reduce Sexual Exploitation

Making public safety a priority by strengthening the Youth
Criminal Justice Act and providing tougher consequences for johns
top the agenda Manitoba will put forward at a federal, provincial
and territorial (FPT) justice ministers’ meeting next week in
Vancouver, Attorney General Andrew Swan said today.

 

“Manitobans have a right to feel safe in their homes and in their

communities.  We work very hard every day to help protect them by
strengthening our laws as well as investing in police, in
prosecutors and in crime prevention,” said Swan.  “We have moved
ahead with new provincial legislative tools and now we are
calling on Ottawa to improve key federal legislation.”

Manitoba has repeatedly called for the reform of the Youth
Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) at past FPT meetings.  At this
meeting, Swan said he will raise concerns about Bill C-4 which
proposes YCJA amendments.  The minister said the bill, currently
before Parliament, does not adequately address deficiencies in
YCJA bail and sentencing provisions and needs to be changed to
deal more effectively with serious and repeat young offenders.
Swan said he will call upon FPT ministers to commit to a special
meeting on the YCJA if the parliamentary standing committee
currently reviewing the bill does not address Manitoba’s
concerns.

He said Manitoba will also suggest the Criminal Code should be
amended to provide Crown attorneys with the ability to seek
increased penalties for johns, in order to reduce sexual
exploitation, diminish negative impacts on communities where
prostitution is taking place and disrupt a key source of revenue
for organized crime.

In order to allow more time for police officers to be on the
streets, Swan said he will support recommendations to amend the
Criminal Code to permit routine police evidence to be presented
by written document rather than requiring police to spend time in
court giving oral testimony on such matters.

The meeting will take place Oct. 13 to 15 in Vancouver.

From the Canadian Bar Association:

OTTAWA – The Canadian Bar Association’s (CBA) National Criminal Justice Section says that while Bill C-4, Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments, contains some necessary changes, it should not be passed as it would undermine the long term protection of society.

“The CBA supports an approach to youth justice that leads to greater public safety over the long haul,” says Scott Bergman of Toronto, Member of the National Criminal Justice Section. “The Bill moves away from a restorative and rehabilitative model of youth justice to a more punitive model, which is both unnecessary and contrary to sound public policy based on well-accepted social science.”

In its submission, the CBA says the Bill would mean more young people would go to jail for longer periods of time, although youth crime has not been increasing, and the diversion and rehabilitation goals of the current Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) have been working well.

The submission notes that according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, overall crime has been falling since the early 1990s and violent youth crime has remained stable for several years. “Every province and territory has experienced reductions in youth court caseloads since the introduction of the YCJA, and fewer youth cases are resulting in jail sentences being imposed.”

“In other words,” says Scott Bergman, “there are fewer court cases and fewer youth in custody without any related increase in violent youth crime.”

The CBA is also concerned that the proposed amendments seem to send a message that three key participants in the criminal justice system – the police, Crown counsel and the judiciary – should not be trusted with discretionary powers. “The CBA opposes amendments which would directly or indirectly discourage these groups from exercising their professional discretion under the YCJA. Discretion is the cornerstone of a just system,” notes the brief.

Bill C-4 (first reading version) in its entirety here.

Manitoba’s in a tough spot. Many other places in the country don’t have the same youth crime severity problem as we do.

I wish Mr. Swan good luck. I also hope for his presence (and that of Winnipeg’s next mayor and police chief) at the standing committee in Parliament to put Manitoba and Winnipeg’s concerns about youth crime on the record and in full.

If they need some help developing case studies to present, I know a few people who would be glad to help out.