Difference between revisions of "Criminal Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2:III)"

Young persons who come into contact with the criminal justice system may suffer from mental health issues. The ''CC'' provisions regarding mental disorders apply to the ''YCJA'' except to the extent they are inconsistent with the ''YJCA'' (s 141). Section 34 of the ''YCJA'' allows the Court to take into account the mental health of a young person and order a report in certain circumstances.  

In practice, the threshold for meeting 34 (a) is broader than it appears. In R v. D.P. (6 July 2017), Vancouver 23695-2-C, 23664-1 (BC Youth Div) the Youth Division of the BC Provincial Court clarified that to order a report under s 34 (1) the court does not need to conclude or even suspect that the evaluation would indicate that a person has a “diagnosed condition”. Instead, 34(1) is satisfied if there is some indication that there is information relating to the young person’s medical condition that would assist the court in carrying out it’s purpose.

*considering an application under s 33 (release from or detention in custody),

*deciding whether to impose an adult sentence under s 71,  

*considering an application for continuation of custody (s 104(1)),  

*setting conditions for conditional supervision (s 105(1)),  

*making an order after a review of a breach of conditional supervision (s 109(2)), or  

*authorizing disclosure of information about a young person (s 127(1)).

Section 34(2)(a) seems to significantly narrow the purposes for which an assessment can be ordered and restricts it to instances where the court is reviewing a previous decision via a section 33 application. In practice, however, the courts suggest that 34(2)(a) should be read to include bail hearings in the first instance. In R v. C.L. (27 February 2014), Vancouver 22805-2-C (BC Youth Div) the Youth Division of the BC Provincial Court noted that restricting s. 34 applications to a youth applying to release from detention “leads to an absurd result” because the same considerations apply before there has been a detention. Similarly, in R v C.B. ( 13 May 2014), Vancouver 23236-1; 23236-2-A (BC Youth Div) the court recognized that 34(2), if read narrowly, is inconsistent with other parts of the act. In C.B. the court notes that s. 34 (2) should be read “expansively” so that it applies to “a release from or detention in custody of a young person who is before the court, whether it is by s.33 or by the more general process of arrest”. Both cases indicate that 34 (2) (a) is not limited to applications under s. 33.