Difference between revisions of "Criminal Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
=== 1. Extrajudicial Measures === | === 1. Extrajudicial Measures === | ||
Extrajudicial measures (EJM) are an alternative to the formal court process. The principles applicable to the use of EJM’s are set out in section 4 of the ''YCJA''. There is a presumption that EJM’s are adequate to hold a young person accountable for | Extrajudicial measures (EJM) are an alternative to the formal court process. The principles applicable to the use of EJM’s are set out in section 4 of the ''YCJA''. There is a presumption that EJM’s are adequate to hold a young person accountable for their offending behaviour if the young person has committed a non-violent offence and has not previously been found guilty of an offence. | ||
However, it may also be appropriate even if there has been a prior use of EJM’s or a prior finding of guilt. The addition of section 4.1(1) from Bill C-75 sets out the direction that EJM’s are also presumed to be adequate to hold a young person accountable in certain cases of breach of sentencing conditions or failure to appear at court, subject to the violations not having caused harm or safety concerns to the public or the young person having a history of failures or breaches. S 4.1(2) of Bill C-75 sets out that EJM’s should be used if they are adequate to hold the young person accountable for their failure to appear or refusal. If EJM’s are inadequate, the next measures the court should consider before proceeding with a charge are 1) issuing an appearance notice for a judicial referral hearing, or 2) applying for a review of the youth sentence. Only once these measures are deemed inadequate should the court proceed with a charge. | However, it may also be appropriate even if there has been a prior use of EJM’s or a prior finding of guilt. The addition of section 4.1(1) from Bill C-75 sets out the direction that EJM’s are also presumed to be adequate to hold a young person accountable in certain cases of breach of sentencing conditions or failure to appear at court, subject to the violations not having caused harm or safety concerns to the public or the young person having a history of failures or breaches. S 4.1(2) of Bill C-75 sets out that EJM’s should be used if they are adequate to hold the young person accountable for their failure to appear or refusal. If EJM’s are inadequate, the next measures the court should consider before proceeding with a charge are 1) issuing an appearance notice for a judicial referral hearing, or 2) applying for a review of the youth sentence. Only once these measures are deemed inadequate should the court proceed with a charge. | ||