R. v. B.J.K. ABPC 125
BETWEEN:
JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.T. L. COOK-STANHOPE
I. Saldana, Ms. for the Crown
J. Conway, for the Accused
INTRODUCTION
[1] On March 13, 2000, the young person, B.K. entered pleas of guilty to the following three charges that he:
COUNT 1: On or about the 19 th day of January, 2000, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully rob (K. M.), contrary to Section 344(B) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
COUNT 2: On or about the 19 th day of January, 2000, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did have in his possession (or carry) a weapon (or imitation of a weapon or prohibited device or ammunition or prohibited ammunition), to wit: knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace (or for the purpose of committing an offence), contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
COUNT 3: On or about the 19 th day of January, 2000, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did, with intent to commit an indictable offence, unlawfully have his face masked or otherwise disguised, contrary to section 351(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[2] On the date in question the young person and one other, R., entered a convenience store located in Calgary, Alberta. Two female employees, S.R. and K.M., were on duty that evening. Both of the women had been in a back office of the store; when one of them, S.R., came out, the young person yelled at her to tell the other employee to come out as well. He was carrying a knife, taken into the store by his co-accused, when the second employee entered the store proper.
[3] The young person and his accomplice were eventually able to open the cash register. From it, they removed approximately $120.00 in cash; they also took $138.00 in cigarettes, $1604.00 in transit passes and tickets and $1581.83 in telephone cards. The two then fled the store, dropping a number of packages of cigarettes along their way to a waiting vehicle within which they fled the scene. Following police investigations, both individuals were apprehended; upon questioning, the young person confessed his involvement to police.
[4] The young person entered pleas of guilty shortly after the charges were laid. A Pre- disposition Report was ordered and proceedings were adjourned to March 13, 2000, to allow for it to be prepared. On that date, an application was made for a referral to the Calgary Community Conferencing Programme.
THE ISSUES
[5 ] The issues are:
1. What is a fit disposition for this offender in light of these particular offences?
2. What should be the impact of the participation of the young person in a Community Conference, and its outcome, on the final disposition to be made by this court?
BACKGROUND
[6] The Community Restoration Conferencing Project in Calgary had its genesis in a pilot project undertaken within the Calgary Family Service Bureau by Mr. Doug Borch, a city youth probation officer, approximately 2 years ago. This project had as its goal to bring together selected individual victims of crimes and young offenders who had perpetrated against them, in a group "conference" environment, with a view to reconciling the damages which had been done, both financial and emotional. The principle guiding the process was to recognize that crimes are acts against human relationships as well as against the offender's community.
[7] Restoration conferences were aimed at having youth accept responsibility and be accountable for their offence behaviour directly to their victims, in order that they could be accepted back into their broader communities. All parties were encouraged to attend these conferences with supporters and/or family members and were allowed to express their views and concerns surrounding the offenses. All of this was facilitated and moderated by a professional social worker, skilled in working with youth, families and victims. The results were then compiled and reviewed.
[8] It would be fair to say that these results significantly exceeded the expectations of those involved. Virtually without exception, all parties who agreed to become involved in the project expressed a high level of satisfaction with the approach of bringing victims and offenders together in a structured, safe, respectful environment to discuss the impact of criminal perpetration.
[9] So successful was this pilot project, it is now a more formal programme, now entitled simply Calgary Community Conferencing, with its own designated staff within the city's probation service who work along with a number of others who have been seconded to the programme from other community resources. The programme appears to be unique in the country, although there are obvious similarities between some of its components, aimed at healing the effects of wrongs done by young offenders, and those which may be found in some traditional aboriginal cultures.
[10] While the programme now has expanded its mandate to include some significant preventative work, as well as interventions at the request of school authorities, with in- school populations in the City, either before or in lieu of criminal charges being laid, referrals to the Community Conferencing Programme by the courts in Calgary are only made following a plea or finding of guilt.
THE LAW
[11] Section 20 of The Young Offenders Act (Canada), 1985, R.S.C., c. 27, (the " Act "), outlines the available dispositions for young persons following findings of guilty as follows:
20(1) Where a youth court finds a young person guilty of an offence, it shall consider any pre-disposition report required by the court, any representations made by the parties to the proceedings or their counsel or agents and by the parents of the young person and any other relevant information before the court , and the court shall then make any one of the following dispositions, other than the disposition referred to in paragraph (k.1), or any number thereof that are not inconsistent with each other ...,
(a) by order direct that the young person be discharged absolutely, if the court considers it to be in the best interests of the young person and not contrary to the public interest;
(a.1) by order direct that the young person be discharged on such conditions as the court considers appropriate;
(b) impose on the young person a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars to be paid at such time and on such terms as the court may fix;
(c) order the young person to pay to any other person at such time and on such terms as the court may fix an amount by way of compensation for loss of or damage to property, for loss of income or support or for special damages for personal injury arising from the commission of the offence where the value thereof is readily ascertainable, but no order shall be made for general damages;
(d) order the young person to make restitution to any other person of any property obtained by the young person as a result of the commission of the offence within such time as the court may fix, if the property is owned by that other person or was, at the time of the offence, in his lawful possession;
(e) if any property obtained as a result of the commission of the offence has been sold to an innocent purchaser, where restitution of the property to its owner or any other person has been made or ordered, order the young person to pay the purchaser, at such time and on such terms as the court may fix, an amount not exceeding the amount paid by the purchaser for the property;
(f) subject to section 21, order the young person to compensate any person in kind or by way of personal services at such time and on such terms as the court may fix for any loss, damage or injury suffered by that person in respect of which an order may be made under paragraph (c) or (e);
(g) subject to section 21, order the young person to perform a community service at such time and on such terms as the court may fix;
(h) subject to section 20.1, make any order of prohibition, seizure or forfeiture that may be imposed under any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder where an accused is found guilty or convicted of that offence;
. . .
(j) place the young person on probation in accordance with section 23 for a specified period of not exceeding two years;
(k) subject to sections 24 to 24.5, commit the young person to custody, to be served continuously or intermittently, for a specified period not exceeding
(i) two years from the date of committal, or
(ii) where the young person is found guilty of an offence for which the punishment provided by the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament is imprisonment for life, three years from the date of committal;
. . .
(l) impose on the young person such other reasonable and ancillary conditions as it deems advisable and in the best interest of the young person and the public.
[12] Section 3 of the Act , significantly amended in 1995, (S.C., c. 39), provides courts with the following guidelines in their determination of fit and proper dispositions:
3(1) It is hereby recognized and declared that
(a) crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young person and developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending behaviour in the future ;
(a.1) while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequence for their behaviour as adults , young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions ;
(b) society must, although it has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent criminal conduct by young persons, be afforded the necessary protection from illegal behaviour;
(c) young persons who commit offences require supervision, discipline and control, but, because of their state of dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have special needs and require guidance and assistance;
(c.1) the protection of society , which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation wherever possible, of young persons who commit offences, and rehabilitation is best achieved by addressing the needs and circumstances of a young person that are relevant to the young person's offending behaviour ;
. . .
(f) in the application of this Act, the rights and freedoms of young persons include a right to the least possible interference with freedom that is consistent with the protection of society, having regard to the needs of young person s and the interests of their families;
. . .
(h) parents have responsibility for the care and supervision for their children, and, for that reason, young persons would be removed from parental supervision either partly or entirely only when measures that provide for continuing parental supervision are inappropriate.
(2) This Act shall be liberally construed to the end that young persons will be dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1).
[13] In light of the Crown's position that this case demands imposition of a disposition of custody, 24(1) of the Act is also of application here:
S. 24(1) The youth court shall not commit a young person to custody under paragraph 20(1)(k) unless the court considers a committal to custody to be necessary for the protection of society having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed and having regard to the needs and circumstances of the young person .
(1.1) In making a determination under subsection (1) , the youth court shall take the following into account:
(a) that an order of custody shall not be used as a substitute for appropriate child protection, health and other social measures;
(b) that a young person who commits an offence that does not involve serious personal injury should be held accountable to the victim and to society through non-custodial disposition whenever appropriate, and
(c) that custody shall only be imposed when all available alternatives to custody that are reasonable in the circumstances have been considered .
[14] In light of the important role which the community conference has played in the disposition process in the present case, it has been impossible not to refer to some of the proposals contained in the Youth Criminal Justice Act [Bill C-3, Second Session, 36th Parliament, 48 Eliz. II, 1999] , which follow:
40. When a youth justice court finds a young person guilty of an offence, the court may refer the matter to a conference for recommendations to the court on an appropriate youth sentence.
41.(1) A youth justice court shall, before imposing a youth sentence, consider any recommendations submitted under section 40, any pre-sentence report, any representations made by the parties to the proceedings or their counsel or agents and by the parents of the young person, and any other relevant information before the court .
[15] While I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am not applying the aforementioned provisions of this Bill, it is obvious that the kind of sentencing conferences it contemplates are already being held in Calgary as a result of the implementation of Calgary Community Conferencing, although consideration by the courts of its recommendations are not yet statutorily mandated.
[16] It also follows that once these provisions become law, courts will have to consider what significance conference recommendations should have in the general sentencing process.
THE DISPOSITION PROCESS
[17] On May 24, 2000, the young person appeared for his disposition hearing, accompanied by counsel and his parents, at which time I heard submissions on behalf of the Crown and the young person.
(A) Submission of the Crown
[18] The Crown urged this court to be mindful of the traditional dispositional principles including the need for denunciation of the offending behaviour, and deterrence of both the young person and other like-minded individuals, within the context of all of the surrounding aggravating factors. Among these, were the vulnerability of the victims in the present case, the fact that this was a convenience- store robbery committed while the young person was armed and masked, during early morning hours, the aspect of premeditation, and the fact that the young person acted in concert with another offender.
[19] The Crown submitted that in view of the gravity and nature of the offences, a custodial disposition was appropriate, citing a number of authorities in support of the argument that the "range" for offences of this kind committed in like circumstances by like offenders is between 9 to 12 months custody. Specifically, these cases include: R. v. S.J.O. et al. (1992), 120 A.R.15, R . v. D.R.A ., (1992) 129 A.R.125 (Alta. Prov. Ct.); R . v.Clinton G. David M . [Unreported, October 26, 1993, Nos. 14508 and 14509], (Alta. C.A.), and R . v. D.C . (1997) 196 A.R. 78. (Alta. C.A.)
[20] As indicated to the Crown at that time, I believed the D.C. (supra) case is one of a trilogy of decisions released the same day by our Court of Appeal; in fact that court issued four decisions involving Crown appeals against dispositions imposed on young persons involved in convenience store type robberies (although in D.C . the location was a pharmacy), and which included R . v. P.B.G ., (1997), 196 A.R.24, (Alta. C.A.), R . v. W.K.S ., (1997), 196 A.R. 75, (Alta. C.A.), and R . v. J.C.S ., (1997), 196 A.R. 72, (Alta. C.A.).
[21] The Crown also fairly acknowledged the contents of the "rather positive" Pre- Disposition Report (Exhibit 1), and the participation of the young person in the Community Conferencing Programme.
(B) Submissions on behalf of the Young Person
[22] On his behalf, counsel for the young person began by acknowledging the difficulty a court faces in assessing and determining a fit disposition. He reiterated the young person's recognition of the seriousness of his offence behaviour, and the effects which it has had on not only his family but those who he harmed most directly, the victims of the offences.
[23] The young person is now 16 years of age, and since the charges have been laid, he has complied with not only strict release provisions imposed by the court, but also conditions imposed by his parents. He has obtained employment and produced a favourable and supportive letter from his employer (Exhibit 3). He entered a prompt guilty plea to all three charges. He has expressed significant and sincere remorse. He has a very supportive family who have stood by him throughout the months which have passed since he committed the offences.
[24] What makes this case different, he suggests, is the participation of the young person in two Community Conferences. During the course of these, he has endeavoured to the best of his ability, to make amends and to be accountable to those he has traumatized and victimized.
(C) The Community Conferences
[25] Following these submissions, it appeared that neither of the two store employees who had attended the community conference of April 4, 2000, were present for the disposition hearing on May 24, 2000, having earlier expressed their desires and intentions attend. The matter was therefore adjourned to allow them to be present. At the same time, I suggested that consideration be given to whether the manager of the store, Mr. B., should also be given the opportunity to participate in a further conference.
[26] Mr. B. had been specifically excluded from the conference with Ms R. and Ms M, at their request. Each expressed the view that Mr. B. was so upset by the events which had endangered his employees, they felt unable to predict how he might respond to meeting the young person face-to-face. When contacted subsequently, however, Mr. B. quickly agreed to participate in a second conference, which was held June 2, 2000.
[27] The report of the Community Conferences of April 4 and June 2, 2000 are marked as Exhibits 2 and 4, respectively. I propose to deal with them in some detail hereunder.
(a) April 4, 2000 Community Conference
[28] Ms R. and Ms M. were long-term employees of the convenience store at the material time. They habitually worked evening and overnight hours. During the early morning hours of January 19, 2000, S.R. believed the two intruders were friends playing a joke on her and her co-worker. When she saw the knife, however, she realized the situation was serious.
[29] K. described the events leading up to the robbery, including how he and his co- accused had driven around for several hours trying to locate a convenience store to rob, eventually settling upon the one where Ms R and Ms M were working. He chose it because the alley behind the store was dark and there were no other customers obviously present in the store. The co-accused had brought along a plastic bag, a mask and a knife from the back seat of the car. K. put a bag over his head, while initially the co-accused carried the knife. K. took the lead entering the store and soon was startled by Ms R., and grabbed the knife from his co-accused, without thinking. He explained that he was scared and concerned that Ms R. might not take him seriously and feared she might call the police.
[30] K. then directed the Ms R. to call her co-worker into the store from the back office, and she did so. Each boy opened a cash register and removed cash; the young person also grabbed cigarettes, phone cards, transit passes and tickets.
[31] Both of the store clerks sensed that K. seemed to know where to look for things, and this raised the fear that the thieves knew the victims, or were perhaps regular customers of the store. K.M. described becoming increasingly angry to the point where she considered picking up a cash register and throwing it at K.; however he moved out of range.
[31] When the two offenders left the store, both women finished their shifts after alerting police and assisting them in their investigations.
[32] In the course of the conference both victims shared their reasons for agreeing to attend the conference with the young person. S.R. said it took her more than two weeks to tell her family that she had been the victim of an armed robbery, and she indicated that her family was completely opposed to the idea of her meeting with K.; in fact S.R.'s mother forcefully declined the opportunity of meeting with the young person at the conference. S.R. feared her mother would "not be able to control herself".
[33] K.M. chose to consult with a friend before deciding whether or not to participate in the conference. This friend, referred to only as "Ash" is a convicted prisoner currently in gaol in Florida, who is awaiting execution as a result of an armed robbery which he committed at a convenience store. During that robbery, two store clerks were killed. He encouraged K.M. to meet with the young person. As well, K.M.'s family supported her decision to participate in the conference, but her other friends felt she should let the young person " rot in gaol".
[34] In the course of the conference K. 's parents were given the opportunity of making their own apologies for the behaviour of their son. They expressed being devastated when they learned what he had done. They tried to search for reasons why their son would have committed these offences and could not even bring themselves to tell members of their extended families.
[35] When asked why he became involved in the offences, the young person described wanting the money and "the thrill". He felt that he gained "stature" among his friends when they learned of his offences, and that he was somehow more "respected". Now, he has had the opportunity to reflect upon the effects of his actions, and believes that the acceptance he gained from his peers was not worth the great deal of harm he has done to so many people.
[36] Following the general meeting, the young person was given the opportunity to meet with his family and probation officer and consider a "restoration" proposal with a view to trying to reconcile his situation with S.K. and K.M., and make amends to them.
[37] The young person's restoration proposal contained the following terms:
1. He would provide each of S.K. and K.M. written updates every two months outlining what he was doing and how he was progressing;
2. He would invite S.K. and K.M. to have a meal at the restaurant where he is employed as a cook;
3. He would write letters to S.K.'s mother and to K.M.'s friend in prison in Florida, explaining what he had learned through the community conference process;
4. He would invite both S.K. and K.M. to his disposition hearing.
[38] The conference report describes how S.K. and K.M. "enthusiastically" accepted the young person's proposal, and SK in particular felt the letter to her own mother would be very meaningful and helpful in removing some of the fear her mother continued to harbour about K. K.M. also felt that a letter to her friend in Florida would have a "significant impact" on him, as his opportunity to have a positive effect upon others is now limited, especially a teenager caught up in circumstances with which he is so familiar. Both S.K. and K.M.. expressed their appreciation for the invitation to attend the young person's disposition hearing, and stated that they wished to "support" him during the hearing. They added an offer of a free Slurpee at their store, but cautioned that the young person should come when the manager was not present.
[39] Since this conference, it is noted that the young person followed through on virtually all of his restoration proposals; what is left, is for him to forward progress notes to each of the victims every two months. I believe it would be appropriate to quote directly, here, the contents of the young person's letters of apology, since their simple words seem to speak eloquently of the young person's sincerity. The first is a letter written to S.K's mother:
"May 10, 2000.
To S.'s Mother:
I am very sorry for what I have done to your daughter. I know I hurt
her in many way (sic) and I've also hurt you to (sic). There is not much
I can say or do that will make you forgive me for what I (sic) have
done. But S. talking to me and me facing her and listening to the other
side woke me up. My Mom used to work for 7-11 and she asked me what
would I do if someone did that to her and I don't know or how to say I
am sorry except because of meeting her fact to face and talking to her.
She helped me understand the other side. I am working at changing my
ways. And you (sic) daughter has helped a lot. I am very sorry.
B.J.K."
[40] Ms R. commented that despite the degree of upset her mother experienced, receiving this letter had the unexpected effect of making her mother feel much better about the robbery.
[41] To K.M.'s friend on death row in Florida, the young person directed the following letter:
"May 10, 2000
Dear Ash:
I would like to thank you for touching K.'s life the way you did because if
it wasant (sic) for you I don't think she would be there for me today the
way she is. I scrued (sic) up real bad. And I'd just like to ask you for your
forgivness (sic) because I hurt a dear friend of yours.. Because of K. and S.
and my Mom I am going to try and be good. They have big hearts and not many
people do these days. And I am sorry for hurting your friend K.
B.J.K."
[42] One can only wonder how K.'s friend must have felt to receive a letter such as this, which not only validated the bond between K. and her friend, but which also spoke of the positive influence that friendship was able to exert on a young boy in trouble half a continent away.
(b) June 2, 2000 Community Conference
[43] The second Community Conference was conducted on June 2nd in the presence of the Mr. B., the store manager, the young person, his parents, his probation officer, and the conference facilitator, Mr. Doug Borch, and two observers. Prior to this conference, Mr. B. had addressed a letter to the young person which set out many of the emotions he had experienced following the robbery:
"April 3, 2000.
To the Young Man,
I am really very angry as to what made you think it was your right
to rob our 7-Eleven store. What gave you the right to ruin peoples' lives.
You not only did damage to the phsyche (sic) of the two girls you robbed
but to me as well.
Your actions caused me to look twice at everyone who entered the
store. I could not be as friendly to customers wondering if they were the one
who was the culprit.
Your actions also caused me to loose my bonuses by causing
expenses to increase. And lost sales due to loss of inventory which could
not be replaced until a week later.
I also had to work the following day with no sleep as I stayed with
the staff after the incident for the rest of the night. What gave you the right
to inflict this on to another person? Yes I am still angry from your actions.
You know if you do this again your violence could be met with
violence. And you may become the one looking at a knife or worse.
Remember in the Universe what goes around comes around but it
usually comes back 10 times worse. You have to pay sometime and it won't
be in the court system. You will receive it from some other source and you
will suffer 10 times worse than these two young ladies or myself. So Beware
as it won't come from me or them but it will come. You earned it.
A.B."
[44] Because it appeared to me that Mr. B. had a great deal he wanted to say to the young person, I asked the conference facilitator to consider setting up this second community conference to allow Mr. B. an opportunity to process his experience. The young person willingly agreed to participate despite the tone of this letter.
[45] At the beginning of the meeting, the young person again described the events which led up to, and during, the robbery. He said he had no intention to hurt anyone with the knife and he accepted that it created a very risky situation for all present. In the presence of both employees, he admitted that he and R. had opened the cash register and taken money, then other store property.
[46] Following their departure from the store he explained how the two divided the stolen property. The young person later sold all of the stolen bus passes and tokens, for which he received several hundred dollars. He discarded some phone cards, fearing they might be traced to him.
[47] Mr. B. recalled being advised of the robbery early on January 19th. He was immediately concerned about the well-being of his two staff. He expressed a great deal of guilt about the robbery and whether or not the perpetrators would be identified since he had refocused his security camera in such a way that it would detect whether one of his staff was stealing from the cash register. When these suspicions proved valid and he had fired that staff person the same day as the robbery, he had neglected to re-directed the camera to its proper viewpoint. He feared that this would mean the robbery would not be captured on film.
[48] When he arrived at the store, Mr. B. found his two employees to be very emotionally upset. He was so worried about their condition, he slept in his truck outside the store on the parking lot, as they insisted on finishing their shift. Since the robbery, other staff have declined to work the late and overnight shifts, and he has had difficulties hiring staff during the intervening months once they learn of the robbery. Financially, he lost approximately $4,500. 00 during the robbery, made up of money and lost inventory, and a $1,000. 00 reduction in his management bonus.
[49] The robbery also took a personal toll on Mr. B., whose health was effected; he is a diabetic, and the additional stress caused by these events caused his blood sugar to rise to abnormal levels over a three-day period after the robbery.
[50] Mr. B. was interested in knowing whether his store would have been targeted, had the back alleyway been better illuminated, or if a security gate had been present. The young person agreed that a light in the back alley and a security gate would have deterred him from committing the robbery. Mr. B. also pointed out to the young person that there are some very protective neighbours living near the store who would have come to the rescue of the employees had they been aware of the events, and that when they learned of the robbery they were very angry.
[51] Following a general discussion of the impact of the crimes on all of the parties present, including the parents, the meeting adjourned for a period of time to allow the young person to discuss with his parents and his probation officer a proposal for "restoration" or reconciliation between himself and Mr. B. The young person made the following restoration proposals:
1. He would directly apologize to Mr. B. for the harm he had done to him;
2. He would directly apologize to his parents for the harm he had done to them;
3. He would offer to make compensation in the sum of $1,700.00, to Mr. B. (representing ½ of the loss suffered by Mr. B., less the returned property valued at $440.00);
4. He would telephone Mr. B. every two months with updates on his progress at school, in work and in general;
5. He would offer to assist Mr. B. in the installation of an alley light and security gate behind his convenience store;
6. He would invite Mr. B. to attend his disposition hearing.
[52] In accepting most of the young person's proposals, Mr. B. made some very powerful remarks to K. First, he pointed out that his issues were never really about financial compensation, and that was not why he agreed to participate in the community conference. He was more concerned with supporting the young person in making positive and healthy choices in the future, and that, alone, made the conference experience worthwhile for him. While appreciating the young person's offer to assist in the installation of the light and security gate, he felt a security company would be more appropriate.
[53] In addition to his willingness to accept these proposals, Mr. B. had proposals of his own. He expressed a desire to be a positive support for the young person in the future, in any way he could, whether in helping him to find a job (he suggested a brother- in-law in the oil industry who would hire him if asked by Mr. B.), or as someone to talk to at any time he needed this. Mr. B. was, above all, enormously sensitive to the difficulties the young person must have experienced in having to face Mr. B., and he expressed his respect to K. for having done so.
[54] The session ended with expressions of mutual respect by all parties for their willingness to participate in a most difficult process.
[55] Over the days that followed, as part of the programme, the parties were contacted, debriefed, in a sense, and allowed to reflect further on their experiences during the conference. All spoke very positively about the way the conference proceeded. K.'s parents were particularly grateful to Mr. B. for the significant impact he had on their son's life. K.'s mother felt Mr. B. had set a strong and valuable example for K. when he focussed on the people harmed, and not the financial aspects of the robbery.
[56] Mr. B. also expressed his gratitude for the opportunity he had been afforded to participate: he felt his questions had all been answered and hoped the young person would take advantage of his offers of support in the future. He made a further offer to allow the young person to work in his store to gain work experience if he wanted to pursue this. He reiterated that only positive changes and good behaviour in the future would satisfy him that the young person had learned his lesson.
[57] For his part, the young person expressed surprise that Mr. B. was so concerned about him. He also offered that he had no idea how many people he had effected, or how deeply . He was very grateful for Mr. B.'s interest in him.
(D) Victim Representations in Court
[58] On June 8, 2000, the matter returned to court once more and the report of the second conference was filed (Exhibit 4). On this occasion the young person attended with his counsel and his parents. In addition, Ms R. and Mr. B. were present. The court was advised that the other store employee, Ms M., was unfortunately not able to attend due to illness.
[59] On this occasion, I offered each of the two victims the opportunity to make any representations to the court they wished. In describing her experiences at the conference, the following exchange occurred between Ms R. and the Court:
MS R.: Basically at first I was really mad at him. After I met him, I kind of not really understood what he was going through, but kind of had a better understanding as to why he did it and what he's going through. Basically, I'm just here because I hope that he turns himself around.
. . . . . .
THE COURT: You're not afraid he's going to come back and do anything?
MS R.: Oh no, not at all.
THE COURT: You're not worried about that at all?
MS R.: When I first started I was ( indiscernible) but now it's kind of--I'm a little bit paranoid but not to the point where I'm a wreck at work.
THE COURT: So you're able to function comfortably?
MS R.: Oh, yeah, I can function fine . ....
THE COURT: You understand that I'm giving consideration about whether he should go to gaol, whether he should not, whether he should be on probation ..., what I should do, and all those things are in the...equation right now? If there's anything you want to say about any of that, please feel comfortable saying it now.
MS R.: I can't really say what I--I don't know, I don't really want to say what I think should happen to him because it's not my choice, but--
THE COURT: No, it isn't a choice but you're certainly welcome to express an opinion, concern anything you'd like to say. This is your opportunity. And the only way you'll get, probably, to tell the Court how you feel in person. And I knew you were quite invested in the process, that's why we put it over to allow you to come.
MS R.: I honestly--my opinion about him going to gaol is that I think he probably has more friends in goal or people that he would meet there who have probably done things worse and I think that's a bad thing for him to interact with people like that. But I really have no experience with goal.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS R.: I'm just concerned that he'll go down.
THE COURT: You think that overall it would be a bad experience?
MS R.: I think so, but I still think that he needs to get punished.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS R.: He needs to learn his lesson to hopefully never do it again.
THE COURT: All right. And you--do you have a sense of whether he tried to be accountable to you?
MS R.: Yeah, he tried.... He's tried really hard with my family because they were really upset. He didn't succeed very well but that's just because my mom works in a bank and she is--I'm her youngest daughter so she is really worried about me.
THE COURT: And protective, understandably.
MS R.: Yes. But he tried. He really did. He took us out for lunch and it was good, he got to let us know ( indiscernible) make it--make it better and how he's improving.
[60] When called upon, Mr. B. stated the following:
MR. B.: I think that this community conferencing was quite a benefit to me as well as to (the young person). I think it's a programme, it should be something that should be done on a regular basis. I felt a sincerity from (the young person). At the same time I feel that you do the crime, you should do whatever needs to be done to pay for what you've done. I don't feel like prison would be a good option for him.
THE COURT: Why is that?
MR. B.: And that is because it's just a sense that I have that if he goes there, he may become like some of the hardened people that are in that system right now. And I don't feel that he is a hardened criminal. I think that this is a first thing for him, and I don't think that prison would benefit.
I think that at the same time he needs to be very accountable and if he does this again, I think that throw the book at him, because I think that would be very foolish on his part. I think that if he has the proper support system in place, and people who will actually listen to him and be able to help him around this, like if he feels like he wants to go out and try this again, he's got some kind of support to talk to and help him around that situation, that might be a benefit. And that's what I've offered myself as a person that he can give a phone call to.
THE COURT: You've actually put yourself down on his list as a supporter in case he finds himself leaning in that direction again?
MR. B.: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. B.: And to be any kind of, like, role model, or someone just to help him through decisions. I've even offered, if--it's up to the courts at that point there, that I would do some work experience with him. Okay. ... I believe that by being a positive supportive influence to this is individual, it would be more of a benefit than the other route of a gaol term.
THE COURT: Now this offence had a terrific impact on you financially.
MR. B.: It did.
THE COURT: And emotionally because you had grave concern about your staff being safe to the point where you lodged yourself on the parking lot...How has the conference approach reflected that or reduced that, or...helped make you feel any differently?
MR. B.: Well, it put a face to the crime, which was something very different for me. It's actually calmed me down a little bit about the whole situation.
THE COURT: I have to tell you that your employees thought you weren't that calm at the beginning and felt that... they would like to do the conference but felt that maybe you couldn't handle it because you were very upset.
MR. B.: I was at the time, yes.
THE COURT: (Your employees) didn't say you were going to be a monster or anything, don't get me wrong, but it was just in terms of `how upset he was', generally speaking. And I understand that you were that upset.
MR. B.: Yeah, I was upset more for the safety of the people who work there.
THE COURT: That's the impression I got.
MR. B.: I didn't --I didn't understand when I got the phone call as to what was happening, if they had been hurt in any way, shape or form, what was going to happen with them, you know, was it going to have a lasting, real lasting hardened effect on them or they wouldn't be able to come to work. Being both very valued employees of mine, I was quite upset with the whole situation. I didn't want to leave them alone so I sort of camped out in the parking lot and stuff like that just so they would feel safer.
THE COURT: Now how do you feel about their safety now from this individual? I think you've made some adjustments in light or whatever.... But apart from that, how do you feel about their safety from this individual?
MR. B.: I don't think that this individual would come back into my store and do that again. ....
THE COURT: ...is it your sense that the process of the conference itself had any impact on the young person's accountability? ....Did he hold himself accountable to you? Did you get that impression?
MR. B.: He did. He did. And I'm hoping that it was genuine. Okay? I hope that he's not just putting up a front so that he can get off easy.
THE COURT: Is he that masterful an actor?
MR. B.: I don't know him that well to say yes or no to that. I will know by his actions in the future. ... That's what will tell me whether or not it was genuine or just a front. So that's how I'm going to leave that part, because I feel that he's genuine, but he's got to prove that to me by actions.
THE COURT: All right. Is there anything else you want to let me know?
MR. B.: Just that if you have the opportunity to recommend this for another young person, I think that it should be done, because I felt it was very valuable for me as well as (the young person).
(E) Parental Representations in Court
[61] The young person's mother began by advising that her son's offence behaviour was completely out of character for him. Since his apprehension and release from custody he has been well-behaved and fully compliant with his restrictive bail terms, including a 24- hour a day house arrest. He has only been away from home for work purposes, which involve a full-time job as a cook in a local restaurant.
[62] The young person's mother feels her son has changed a great deal, in part because he is no longer able to associate with those peers with whom he was in trouble. She expressed fear that were he to be placed in custody, he would begin to re-associate with those same individuals, and perhaps conclude that he "fits in" with them, or that a gaol term is somehow "cool". She also feared that if this were to occur he would be right back where he started.
[63] It is clear to the young person's mother that having to face up to the victims of her son's crimes has had a great impact on her son, and on her family in general. It has enabled him to look at things differently and to appreciate how significant has been the impact and the harm of his decisions on the two store clerks, and the manager. Talking to the women made him understand how just serious his behaviour was.
[64] The mother also reassured the court that her son can rely upon his family for support in the future, despite the profound effect his behaviour has had on his younger brothers and the other members of the family.
[65] K.'s step-father stated that he went through a period of self-blame after the robbery, but that he is satisfied the young person has reached a point of genuine remorse and maturity He has noticed a greatly improved attitude on the part of the young person and was impressed by his willingness to meet with those he has victimized.
(F) Young Person's Representations in Court
[66] When afforded the opportunity of addressing the court on his own behalf, the young person expressed his remorse for what he had done to all three victims. He acknowledged that he was responsible for hurting a number of people and apologized yet again . He explained how he had made the decisions leading up to the offences and how, despite his fear of getting caught and what his mother and friends would think of him, he went ahead and committed the crimes because of a desire for money. He also acknowledged that this was purely a self- focussed decision, one that he and his accomplice thought was "cool" at the time.
[67] The young person has maintained full-time employment since the time of the offences, a job at which he expected to continue throughout the summer. His future plans are to enroll in school in September. He will therefore have the means, provided he maintains his employment, to make restitution.
(G) Young Person's Fulfilment of Restoration Proposals
[68] I am informed that the young person has followed through on a significant number of his conference proposals. Specifically, he has:
1. Invited S.K. and K.M. for a meal at his restaurant and they have attended;
2. Apologized to all three victims;
3. Apologized to his parents and other family members;
4. Apologized by letter to S.K.'s mother and to K.M.'s friend in prison in Florida;
5. Offered to assist Mr. B. in the installation of security features at his store (this was declined);
6. Invited all three victims to his disposition hearings.
ANALYSIS
(A) Review of Case Authorities
[69] As I have already indicated, the Crown relied first on the decision of this court in D.R.A . (supra) for its recitation of the traditional principles to be applied in the disposition process, and its emphasis, in light of its surrounding facts, upon denunciation and deterrence as the dominant features in the dispositions imposed against four young persons.
[70] The four were charged with the robbery of a convenience store and with being masked during the commission of the same. They had entered the store in the early morning hours and accosted the lone employee, forcing him to the floor with threats of physical harm. All were armed, two with knives, two with broken pool cues. The motive, as here, was to get money to enable the group to continue partying.
[71] In fashioning what would be a fit disposition for each of the offenders this court said the following about denunciation as a disposition principle: (p.128)
"The goal of denunciation is to stigmatize past criminal conduct. With very serious violations of the criminal law community values are such that strong and clear sanctions are expected by the public which will reflect the abhorrence of society towards the conduct, even in the absence of any evidence of a pattern of previous criminal behaviour on the part of the offender. Thus, a denunciatory sentence or disposition, usually incarceration , is often expected by the community absent any other justification for segregating an offender from the community. ... Denunciation is also relevant in that it can serve to announce to the public how firmly held is the value and how jealously it will be protected."
[72] Further, at p. 135, the court said:
"Society expects that when serious criminal acts are committed by anyone, such acts should be stigmatized. Robbery while masked and armed is very, very serious. The possibility of physical harm to vulnerable employees and patrons of convenience stores in circumstances such as the present ones is very high. Any sanction in response to such serious events must reflect the abhorrence of the community. A community-based disposition for such offences as those before me would simply be totally inadequate."
[73] Of deterrence, this court went on to state: ( p. 129):
"In general terms deterrence will underscore the inevitable disadvantages which criminal conduct will attract. ... To be effective, a sanction with deterrence as its aim will be brought to the attention of those who might consider offending so they will be sufficiently informed to be able to examine "cause and effect" within the criminal justice system."
[74] Later, at p.133, referring to the reasoning in R. v. A.M.G. , (1988), 84 A.R. 161 (Alta. C.A.) the court quoted from that decision:
"...even where rehabilitation is not seen to be an objective, that is not to say that a fit disposition should not include custody for other valid reasons. Individual and limited deterrence are two of these other valid reasons."
[75] It must be noted that the decision in D.R.A predated the 1995 amendments to the Young Offenders Act already noted, specifically s.24(1). That section not only prohibits custodia l sanctions unless they are required for the protection of society, in light of the surrounding circumstances of offense and offender, but also where there has been no serious personal injury [ss. (1.1)(c)], directs courts to consider holding the offender accountable to the victim and to society by non-custodial measures, whenever "appropriate".
[76] S.J.O. (supra), involved the armed robbery of a gas bar. Three young offenders were involved, all were masked and in possession of weapons. I was unable to draw from this decision any assistance as to the principles to be applied in the current case. It appears to have been argued to establish that even first-ttimeoffenders will receive custodial dispositions for such robberies. Furthermore, the decision is dated, (1991 ), does not take into account a number of changes in the law.
[77] In Clinton G . and David M .(supra), this court had imposed a non-custodial disposition against two young offenders who had robbed two convenience businesses. One of the two was armed with a baseball bat. The Court of Appeal, in substituting a custodial disposition in each case, stated that this court had failed to " properly take into account the need for general deterrence in sentencing young offenders convicted of convenience store robberies, where...a weapon ...was used to intimidate the victims." In that case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had "focussed on individual deterrence without due consideration to the need for general deterrence". Again, I note that this case predates the amendments to s. 24 of the Act.
[78] I turn now to the group of cases decided by the Court of Appeal in March of 1997.
[79] P.B.G ., (supra), concerned the late night robbery of a convenience store. G. and one other approached a female clerk. The co-accused brandished a hunting knife and demanded money. The clerk complied, providing a small amount of cash, and the two left the store.
[80] The co-accused later surrendered to police claiming he had been forced to commit the crime under threats of violence from a young adult. He stated that G., also, was coerced. The trial court accepted that there had been coercion by the adult co-offender. Upon his conviction for robbery and extortion, the adult received a three- year prison sentence. G. gave a full confession. He was purportedly intoxicated at the time of the offence.
[81] G. had experienced a troubled up- bringing, which included abuse by his parents and his eventual rejection by them. He lived on the streets for some time, then went into foster care. He had stabilized by the time of the disposition and was receiving regular psychiatric treatments and medications. The court had imposed 100 hours of community service work, most of which G. had completed by the time of the appeal hearing. In addition, the young person was placed under a very restrictive probation order.
[82] In considering the application of the Crown to vary the disposition of the trial judge by substituting an order for custody, the court said this of s. 24 of the Act : (p. 27)
"The burden of s. 24 is that custody shall not be imposed unless the court considers it necessary for the protection of society having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances under which the offence was committed and the needs and circumstances of the young person; that those who commit offences not involving serious personal injury should be held accountable to the victim and to society through non-custodial dispositions "whenever appropriate"; and that custody should be imposed only when all alternatives "reasonable in the circumstances" have been considered. It is apparent from this that sentencing for young offenders must be an individualized process and that, as a result, there will often be cases where custody will not be required."
[83] The Court of Appeal framed the issue in the following way: (p. 28)
"...(was) the trial judge...in error in concluding that...a custodial disposition was not necessary and that the only reason for a custodial disposition would be general deterrence. Put another way, was this a case where a non- custodial disposition was " appropriate" and "reasonable"?"
[84] The Court then went on to answer the question:
"...the Young Offenders Act continues to underscore society protection as an objective. It also stands for the proposition that young persons should bear some responsibility for their contraventions. They should be held accountable to their victims and to society. In this case, the only way G. was held directly accountable to his victim was the order to pay restitution of $40.00. But this does not address the terror that can haunt a clerk who is threatened by two youths with a knife, late at night, vulnerable and alone in a store that carries cash. Although this clerk was not physically harmed, it is the sort of situation that could easily deteriorate into that result. The seriousness of this crime and its impact upon such a victim must be brought home to this young person.... that could not be reasonably achieved in this case without some form of custodial disposition."
[85] In other words, a non-custodial disposition was neither reasonable nor appropriate in light of all of the circumstances.
[86] In W.K.S ., (supra), the young person had entered a plea of guilty to a charge of robbery, while masked. The offence was committed with an adult co- accused. The two had brandished firearms and made off with $200.00 in cash. The young person had no prior record. He received a disposition of probation, restitution and community service hours. The adult was sentenced to 19 months imprisonment.
[87] The Crown appealed and the Court agreed that this offence was towards the upper end of seriousness. In adding a five month custodial term to the community-based disposition imposed by the lower court, the Court said: (p. 77)
"Parliament has also emphasized that the offender should be held accountable to the victim . W.K.S. was ordered to repay the robbery proceeds. This is some accounting to the victim of the theft. However, there is no indication that he has accounted, or tried to account, to the victim of the violence (the convenience store clerk). The convenience store clerk is a forgotten person in this sentencing . His is a very vulnerable job. We don't know if he wanted or needed counselling after this robbery. We don't know if he was able to continue in his job. We don't know if he would have been prepared to meet with K.K.S., to receive his apology. What we do know is that there was no evidence before the sentencing judge that W.K.S. had been held accountable to the convenience store clerk.
[88] In J.C.S . (supra), the 15-year-old young person entered pleas of guilty to two robbery charges and received a disposition of 18 months probation plus 200 hours of community service work. The Crown appealed.
[89] The first robbery was committed by the young person and two others; the young person and one accomplice each wore a mask and carried knives. The business victimized was a pharmacy. A month later the young person and one other robbed the same pharmacy again, this time they were also masked and one brandished a knife before a female clerk. An employee endeavoured to capture the young person as he tried to flee; the young person struck that individual causing bruising.
[90] The Crown sought a lengthy period of custody. Unusually, the investigating detective appeared in court to speak on two occasions against the imposition of a custodial disposition, and to support the young person's father in his desire to keep the young person under parental control. The Youth Court judge had expressed the opinion that rehabilitation of the young person offered the best hope of protecting society in the future.
[91] One of the two victims of these crimes expressed the view that perhaps the young person should receive a number of community service hours. The views of the two other victims were not known at the time of disposition or appeal. Psychological materials available to the reviewing Court outlined very serious concerns on the part of the young person's therapist, who concluded that, having made a genuine suicide attempt following the robberies, the risk of further similar attempts was real, in the event the young person was incarcerated. For this reason alone, the Court declined to interfere with the non- custodial disposition.
[92] D.C . (supra), also involved a Crown appeal from a community-based disposition for robbery. In that case a 14-year old young person and one other entered a pharmacy, confronted the cashier with a knife, and in a threatening manner, demanded cigarettes. Another employee chased the two young persons from the store, and the store's pharmacist apprehended D.C. The accomplice then returned to assist D.C. and attacked the pharmacist. D.C., who had a minor record for mischief and committed an assault while awaiting disposition, gave a full confession, entered early guilty pleas and expressed remorse. He spent 2 months in pre-disposition detention. He had a significant substance abuse problem.
[93] Following his apprehension, the young person had made some efforts to improve his educational status while in custody, however his probation officer was concerned about the possible effects of historical patterns of his immaturity, non-compliance and impulsivity on his future abilities to stay out of trouble. At the time of this appeal, the young person had done little to complete the community service ordered by the trial judge, despite his stated intention to make changes in his life.
[93] In allowing the appeal and substituting a three-month custodial disposition, the Court of Appeal concluded that the original decision did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the need to protect the public, the circumstances of planning, the joint criminal activity or the degree of traumatization of the victim. Furthermore, the court stated that the disposition did not provide for the young person to be accountable to society or the victim .
[94] In one final case, R. v. J.R.V. ,[Unreported, Alta. C.A., Calgary, June 5, 2000; No. 00-18642], a young person was found guilty of a number of property offences as well as dangerous driving and being unlawfully at large. The facts in one of three motor vehicle thefts surrounded a short police car chase. The sentence from which the Crown appealed was 18 months probation, community service and compensation.
[95] Mitigating factors considered by the Court included the guilty pleas, lack of prior record, 16 days of pre- trial detention, participation in a community conference with two of the victims, letters of apology to the victims, three days personal service to one of the victims, a return to school and employment. In addition, one of the victims attended the Court of Appeal hearing to give support to the young person, in opposition to a change in the disposition.
[96] The Crown appeal focussed upon the necessity for a deterrent disposition following earlier appellate directives in cases of police chases. The Crown's view was that deterrence could and would only be achieved by a custodial disposition, and cited authorities which seemed to make custody virtually mandatory for such offences.
[97] In rejecting the Crown's application, the court pointed out that, as in the case at bar, those cases pre-dated the amendments enacted in connection with s. 24(1), to which I have earlier made reference, and further, referred to the Supreme Court of Canada's repeated directions that appellate courts give proper deference to the decisions of sentencing courts, absent errors in principle, or inappropriate consideration or lack of consideration of relevant factors.
[98] J.R.V . is the only decision of which I am aware, which refers to the aspect of a community conference, the extent of victim and offender participation in the conference, or victim participation in the disposition process, as mitigating factors.
(B) Review of Restoration Proposals
[99] It is not disputed by the Crown that the restoration proposals put forward by the young person following the lengthy community conferences held, each three hours in duration, were found to be acceptable to each of the three victims of these offences. The question is whether or not they represent an adequate response to the offences, the circumstances of their commission and to the needs and circumstances of this individual offender.
CONCLUSIONS
[100] The passages cited in both P.B.G . and W.K.S . appear to underscore a growing sensitivity in our courts to the needs of individuals and communities, who fall victim to criminal offences, to have a voice in the sentencing process. This represents a subtle, but clear shift away from historical approaches to crime and criminality: a move from the mere identification and punishment of offenders by means intended to stop criminal behaviour, to an acknowledgement of not only the causes, but the effects of crime on society and on individuals. With this acknowledgement has come various attempts within the criminal justice system to include those who wish to participate in the criminal justice process, with the now joint purposes of discouraging criminal behaviour and reconciling the harm done by it.
[101] A recognition of these dual purposes is an obvious part of the philosophy of the Calgary Community Conferencing Programme, and my examination of the role it has played in a number of cases, before and including the present one, compels me to conclude that a restoration approach within the disposition process for young offenders can and often does have startling results.
[102] It follows that the results of a conference may have a dramatic impact on the eventual disposition imposed. I believe that the imposition of a custodial disposition is only one way to address the traditional aspects of sentencing. Programmes such as the one which was undertaken in the present case, when employed in a proper case, are sufficiently flexible to address most if not all of the expectations of a fit disposition. I am satisfied that the young person's participation in the conferences I have just described justifies a non- custodial disposition.
[102] These conferences have provided a forum for the young person to be directly and personally accountable to those he has harmed. I am satisfied that the young person approached these extra-judicial processes willingly and sincerely, hoping to make amends, and that he was successful in doing so. This result permits the hope if not the prediction, that further offence behaviour will be deterred. In addition, there can have been no doubt in this young person's mind that his participation in the robbery was being soundly and directly denounced by the conference participants.
[103] I am furthermore satisfied that absent his participation in these two conferences, the young person would have been facing a custodial disposition, based upon traditional sentencing principles. I believe that conferences of this kind, provided they continue to be facilitated by highly-trained professionals skilled in working with young offenders, families in crises and victims, afford a unique opportunity for all who are able to participate. I also believe that these types of reconciliation meetings will occur more and more, particularly once the new legislation comes into being.
[104] In response to the stated issues:
1. A fit and proper disposition is:
(A) an order of probation for 12 months requiring that the young person:
1. Shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
2. Shall attend before the court as required:
3. Shall report changes in address, occupation, education or employment to the Clerk of the Court of the assigned probation officer;
4. Shall reside where approved by the assigned probation officer;
5. Shall attend school or pursue an educational programme approved by the assigned probation officer; or make reasonable efforts to locate and maintain suitable employment;
6. Shall abide by all reasonable house rules imposed by a parent;
7. Shall attend for assessment and counselling as may be directed by the assigned probation officer;
8. Shall not have in his possession any weapons or items suitable for use as weapons;
9. Shall not possess or use any intoxicants or non-prescription drugs;
10. Shall report every two (2) months by telephone to Mr. A.B. and provide to him a verbal report of his progress in work, education and in general;
11. Shall report by letter to S.K. and K.M. every two (2) months to provide them with reports of his progress in work, education and in general: such reports shall be delivered to his probation officer to be forwarded to S.K. and K.M.
12. Shall be bound by a curfew of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., 7 days a week, unless the said curfew is extended in writing, in advance, by a parent or probation officer;
13. Shall not associate in any manner whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly, with John Reilly;
14. Shall attend for assessment and counselling with A.A.D.A.C. or such other appropriate place or professional as may be directed by his assigned probation officer to address issues of illicit drug use;
15. Shall report to and be under the supervision of a probation officer as directed by the assigned probation officer.
(B) a personal service order in favour of A.B., in the nature of the young person's participation in work experience under the supervision of A.B. for a total of 30 hours be completed by January 31, 2001;
(C) a community service order for a total of 50 hours to be completed by August 31, 200l;
(D) a Compensation Order for $1,700. 00 payable by August 1, 2001 to the Clerk of the Family Courts for the joint benefit of 7-11 Canada and Mr. B., jointly;
2. The impact a community conference should have upon the eventual outcome in a case such as this will depend upon a number of factors, including but not necessarily limited to the following:
- the court's assessment of the degree of participation of the young person in the conferencing process
- the degree of insight into the harm done by the offence behaviour, the willingness and sincerity of the young person to make amends
- the connection between the restoration proposal and those harmed
- the acceptance of the restoration proposal by those harmed,
- the degree to which the needs of society have been addresses.
The successful community conferences held in the present case have satisfied me
that a non-custodial disposition is both appropriate and reasonable in light of all of the circumstances.
_______________________________
L.T.L. Cook-Stanhope, Judge,
The Provincial Court of Alberta.