Search Results

[1] On May 31, 2002, final arguments were given by counsel with respect to the following charges for which C.L. T. (the "Young Person") had earlier entered guilty pleas:

"On or about the 3rd day of June, 2001, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully rob R. D., while using a firearm, contrary to section 344(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada ."

"On or about the 3rd day of June, 2001, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully kidnap R. D. with intent to cause him to be confined or imprisoned against his will, contrary to section 279(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. "

"On or about the 3rd day of June, 2001, at or near, Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully use a firearm, to wit: a 9 mm Beretta handgun, while committing an indictable offence, contrary to section 85(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada ."

"On or about the 3rd day of June, 2001, at or near, Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully use or traffic in a CIBC Visa credit card in the name of R.D. that he knew had been obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence, contrary to section 342(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada ."

"On or about the 4th day of June, 2001, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully have in his possession a handgun of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, the property of G. K., knowing that the said property was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to section 355(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. "

[2] The Young Person was originally detained after a show cause hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code , R. S. C. 1985, c. C-46 (the " Code ") but was later granted a 7.1 release pursuant to the provisions of the Young Offenders Act , R. S. C. 1985, c. Y-1 (the " Y. O. A. "). In total, he spent fifteen days on remand status before his release.

[3] Crown counsel has asked this Court to impose on the Young Person a disposition of two years secure custody followed by probation, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order pursuant to the provisions of the Code .

[4] Counsel for the Young Person has asked this Court to impose a disposition of probation, and agrees with the request for a weapons prohibition. He makes no submissions with respect to the Crown's request for a DNA order.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

[5] What follows are the agreed facts which gave rise to the charges and subsequent guilty pleas by the Young Person:

"On 2001-06-03 at approximately 1830 hours R. D., (the "Victim") was in his residence in Calgary. He was waiting for his nineteen year old brother to arrive. The Victim was called to his front door by someone knocking on it.

When the Victim opened the front door, he saw a white male wearing a green sweater. The white male, who was later identified as D. A. M. (the "Co- accused"), wanted to know if Scott was in. The Victim informed the Co- accused that he had the wrong residence.

The Victim proceeded to close the front door. The Co-accused then prevented the Victim from doing so by pushing against the door and putting his arm between the door and the doorframe.

A second white male, who was later identified as the Young Person, appeared at the front door. He was wearing a white jacket with a "Green Drop" logo. One of the culprits was armed with a loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun.

The Young Person assisted the Co- accused with pushing against the front door. The two suspects forced the front door open and entered the foyer of the residence.

Upon entering the foyer, the Young Person pointed the handgun at the Victim's head. The Victim screamed.

The Co-accused put on a pair of yellow ski goggles and searched the residence. The Young Person detained the Victim in the foyer at gunpoint.

After searching the residence and disabling the telephones, the Co-accused returned to the foyer.

The Young Person escorted the Victim to the living room by pointing the handgun at the Victim. The Co-accused went to the living room as well.

The Young Person told the Victim to sit on the couch. The Young Person sat in a chair opposite the Victim and pointed the handgun at the Victim. While the Young Person guarded the Victim, the Co-accused proceeded to demand of the Victim the location of his wallet, his money, and his jewellery.

During this time the Young Person clicked the safety on the gun while pointing it at the Victim. The Victim reacted to the click and the Young Person responded "Don't worry it's just the safety."

The Young Person instructed the Victim to stand up and to put his hands behind his head. The Co-accused, the Young Person, and the Victim then went to the kitchen to search for the wallet. The Young Person escorted the Victim back to the kitchen by pointing the handgun at the Victim's back.

In the kitchen, the Victim told the Co-accused that his wallet might be located in his BMW motor vehicle parked outside the residence. While the Co-accused was outside, the Young Person guarded the Victim in the kitchen.

When the Co-accused returned to the kitchen with the wallet, the Co-accused proceeded to interrogate the Victim about the location of his money and his jewellery. Throughout the interrogation, the Young Person pointed the handgun at the Victim.

The Victim told the Co-accused he had neither money nor jewellery. The Co- accused became angry and asked the Victim where his bedroom was. The threesome then went to a bedroom to search for money and jewellery. The Young Person escorted the Victim at gunpoint.

In the bedroom, the Co-accused told the Victim to open drawers and show him where the jewellery was. While the Victim opened drawers, the Young Person stood guard with the handgun.

Using a telephone cord, the Co- accused trussed the Victim while the Young Person stood guard with the handgun. The Co-accused trussed the victim by tying the Victim's wrists behind his back and then tying the cord around the Victim's neck. The Co- accused then tied the Victim to the four poster bed, and the Young Person pointed the handgun at the Victim.

The Victim's wallet was gone through by both accused. The Co-accused removed the Victim's Royal Bank debit card from the wallet and demanded the Victim's pin number. He was told "If you lie to us, we'll come back." The Victim provided the correct pin number for the Royal Bank debit card.

The Young Person then removed the CIBC Visa Aerogold card from the Victim's wallet and asked the Victim what the card's limit was. The Victim then provided this information and also indicated that the limit on the Victim's Royal Bank Visa gold card had been reached.

The Co-accused and the Young Person then left the Victim tied up in the spare bedroom. Before leaving the spare bedroom, the Young Person instructed the Victim to count to 100.

Once the Victim could no longer hear any sounds in the residence, he attempted to free himself from the telephone cord. He was still unsure if the two men were still in the house. He eventually freed himself and injured his neck in so doing.

The Victim then stumbled from his residence to a neighbour's house where the Victim called the police.

The Co-accused and the Young Person then fled the Victim's residence taking the Victim's BMW motor vehicle, one CIBC Visa Aerogold card, one Royal Bank debit card and pin number, one pair of Gucci eyeglasses (recovered; value $200.00), one cell phone and charger (value $600.00), BMW keys and spare keys, Victim's and his mother's house keys, fifteen compact disks of music (value $20.00 to $25. 00 each). Also taken were numerous items which were located in the stolen motor vehicle.

The Co-accused and the Young Person drove the BMW to the Kensington Royal Bank branch located on 10th Street N. W. Using the Victim's Royal Bank debit card and pin number, the Co- accused withdrew $1,000.00 from an automated teller machine while the Young Person waited in the stolen vehicle.

A short time later, the Co-accused and the Young Person also made use of the Victim's CIBC Aerogold card to purchase items at a Bowness gas station in the amount of $97.60. The Young Person was the driver of the stolen vehicle at that time and was in possession of the Visa card and the truck keys.

Police recovered the BMW motor vehicle at the Safeway parking lot located at 5048-16th Avenue N. W. at 0700 hours on 01-06-04.

At 1305 hours on 01-06-04 police attended at suite #12 at the Red Carpet Inn located on 16th Avenue N. W. Detective Street showed his badge and was admitted into the suite by the Co-accused. The Young Person was also found in the suite. Once inside the suite, police observed property obtained during the Victim home invasion robbery.

Both the Co-accused and the Young Person sat on the bed as they were arrested and given their charter rights.

Just after being informed of his charter rights, the Co-accused dove across the bed and retrieved a semi- automatic handgun concealed underneath a pillow. As the Co-accused turned and raised the gun at police, Detective Street lunged across the bed and struggled with the Co-accused. Detective Cain then joined in the struggle and the Co-accused was subsequently subdued.

A loaded 9mm Beretta was seized from the Co-accused's possession."

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE YOUNG PERSON AND THE VICTIM

[6] Counsel for the Young Person had earlier taken exception to some of the contents of both the February 11, 2002 Predisposition Report prepared by Pat Ellis, a probation officer, and the section 13 Psychological Report prepared by Dr. P. Sirota. Both reports were ordered pursuant to the Y.O.A. Counsel for the Crown also took exception to a part of the Predisposition Report. With the concurrence of defense and Crown, these two reports were filed as exhibits at the conclusion of final argument on May 31, 2002 with the offensive sections clearly marked. Counsel for the Young Person asked that I consider both of these sanitized reports in making my decision regarding the appropriate disposition.

[7] The February 11, 2002 Predisposition Report confirmed the Young Person did not have a prior record. This Report indicated the Young Person suffered physical abuse at the hands of his father while growing up, and did not have a "positive and stable home." The Report also indicated that the Young Person rebelled, ran away from home, and started using crack cocaine in May 2001. He also refused counselling. According to the probation officer, the Young Person told her that he acknowledged responsibility for his actions, feels remorse for the Victim, and is willing to "serve his time or comply with any other dispositions ordered by the Court." The Report indicated that according to the Young Person's mother, these offences were out of character for him. Finally, the Report confirmed the Young Person has been compliant with his release conditions.

[8] The April 29, 2002 Update to the earlier Predisposition Report, which was ordered due to earlier concerns expressed by counsel, confirmed the Young Person's compliance with his release conditions. The Update also indicated the Young Person and his father have apparently settled their differences as the Young Person now resides in his father's home. This Update was also filed as an exhibit.

[9] The section 13 Psychological Report prepared by Dr. Sirota indicated the Young Person participated in these offences in order to get money to feed his cocaine habit. Psychological testing performed by Dr. Sirota indicated the Young Person has "... an internalized sense of right versus wrong, and often feel guilty for their transgressions. Behaviour problems are often related to family problems or longstanding internal conflict relating to authority issues." Testing also indicated the Young Person gets easily bored and becomes disruptive in order to seek excitement. Dr. Sirota also noted in his report the Young Person expressed remorse, and that he appeared to be genuine when he talked about his feelings. Dr. Sirota recommended counselling including counselling for addictions and anger management. Dr. Sirota concluded his report by indicating that test results "... suggest a positive prognosis for rehabilitation."

[10] As a result of defense counsel's concerns with respect to Dr. Sirota's report, a section 13 Psychiatric Report was ordered and subsequently prepared by Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Keriem. This report was also marked as an exhibit. Dr. Abdel-Keriem stated that the Young Person knew his actions were unlawful, and that "His capacity to refrain committing the offenses was probably influenced to a certain extent by his alleged active use of marijuana and "crack" prior to the time when the offenses took place." Dr. Abdel-Keriem confirmed the Young Person said he was remorseful for his actions. After having conducted his examination, Dr. Abdel- Keriem diagnosed adolescent conduct disorder, adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct, substance abuse, adolescent antisocial traits, and moderate psycho social stressors. Dr. Abdel-Keriem recommended counselling for self-monitoring, anger management, pro- social skills training, drug rehabilitation, and individual/family therapy. Dr. Abdel-Keriem concluded his report with the following comment." As well as allowing the Young Person the opportunity to atone for and become more aware of the significant impact of his crime due to the nature of the offense, this writer questions whether the Young Person truly understands the seriousness and the destructiveness of his behaviour. He appeared to be remorseful for his actions however he primarily attributed his behaviour to external events such as substance use, being influenced by the Co-accused, and the Victim was not supposed to be at home."

[11] The Young Person requested to participate in a community conference with the Victim. The Victim indicated that he was not willing to participate in such a conference.

[12] The Victim Impact Statement filed as an exhibit indicates that "The Victim has been traumatized by the offence, experiencing depression, anxiety, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts. He has not returned to work since the date of the offence."

ANALYSIS

[13] The leading decision in Alberta with respect to a home invasion robbery is the 1996 Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Matwiy, 105 C. C. C. (3d) 251 (Alta. C. A.). The Court, in that case, set forth the six features that must be present in order for a crime to be considered a home invasion robbery.

[14] The first feature is that the accused plans to commit a home invasion robbery and a home is selected for the purpose of stealing property. The second feature is that the accused arms himself with a weapon. The third feature is that the accused enters a dwelling house which he knows is occupied or ought to reasonably expect is occupied. The fourth feature is that the accused confines the occupant even for a short period of time. The fifth feature is that the accused threatens the occupants with death or harm. The sixth and last feature is that the accused attempts or actually steals property.

[15] Based on the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the offences to which the Young Person has entered guilty pleas constitute a home invasion robbery as defined by the Court of Appeal in Matwiy supra . The Agreed Statement of Facts makes it clear that the Young Person and the Co-accused entered a dwelling home occupied by the Victim for the purpose of stealing property. The Young Person had a 9mm Beretta in his possession which was used during the robbery. The robbery occurred at 1830 hours, a time during which the Young Person ought to have reasonably expected the residence to be occupied. The Agreed Statement of Facts also makes it clear that the Victim was confined. Pointing the gun at the Victim's head and clicking the safety on the gun is, in my opinion, a clearly implied threat of death or harm. Finally, the Agreed Statement of Facts makes it clear that property was stolen.

[16] The Court in Matwiy supra stated that the starting point for a home invasion robbery by a mature first offender should be eight years, with this starting point adjusted upwards or downwards base on aggravating or mitigating factors. When these factors are taken into consideration, a range for sentencing is thereby established.

[17] I have not come across or been provided with any cases since Matwiy supra which, given the decision in R. v. Rahime , 2001 ABCA 203 (Alta. C. A.), indicate a shift by our Court of Appeal towards the use of conditional sentences for home invasion robberies committed by adults. To the contrary, subsequent cases in this province indicate a continued use of incarceration for offences in the nature of home invasions where robbery is the main purpose, as distinguished from home invasion cases where serious bodily harm to the occupants is intended.

[18] The principle in Matwiy supra was applied by Lee J. in R .v. Laidley , [2001] A. J. No. 1223, 2001 ABQB 781 (Alta. Q. B.). It is important to keep in mind Lee, J.'s comments in this decision wherein he points out that cases involving home invasion where the main purpose is to commit serious bodily harm on the occupants tend to receive lighter sentences. As noted previously, on the facts of the present case, I find that a home invasion for the purpose of robbery was committed by the Young Person and the Co-accused.

[19] In R. v. Taylor , [2002] A. J. No.323, 2002 ABQB 266 (Alta. Q. B.), Veit, J. applied the Matwiy principles. Of particular interest in this case are the learned Justice's comments on the Criminal Law Amendment Act , 2001, S.C.2002, c.13 (formerly Bill C-15A). As Veit, J. points out, one of the main purposes of this proposed new legislation is to make home invasions an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes where the accused "(a) knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling-house was occupied, and (b) used violence or threats of violence to a person or property." In view of this amendment, Veit, J. argues that with respect to Matwiy, "...that decision should be seen as describing the treatment that should be given to some aggravating circumstances of robbery."

[20] There remains the issue, however, whether young offenders convicted under the Y.O.A. should be given non-custodial dispositions regardless of the trend towards use of incarceration involving adults. Crown counsel provided me with a number of decisions in that regard.

[21] In R. v. J. J. F. S. , [2001] A. J. No.443, 2001 ABPC 68 (Alta. Prov. Crt.), Wood, J. held that the starting point for an home invasion robbery involving a young offender, having regard to Matwiy supra , was eighteen months custody. There was a significant amount of planning prior to the home invasion in that case and one of the occupants sustained significant physical injuries. After taking into account all aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including five months spent in pre-trial custody and the lack of any prior record, Wood, J. imposed a further twelve months custody.

[22] In R. v. F. E. B. , [2001] A. J. No.768, 2001 ABPC 101 (Alta. Prov. Crt.), Fowler, J., in dealing with another of the co-accused involved in the same home invasion in which

J. J. F. S. supra was involved, imposed a global disposition of two years secure custody less time spent in pre-trial custody. F. E. B. did not have any prior involvement with the justice system prior to this event.

[23] In R. v. G .A. L . [1994] N. S. J. No.517 (N. S. C. A.), the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of two years secure custody followed by one year's probation on both a seventeen and eighteen year old young offender for a home invasion robbery. Each of these youths had minor prior records.

[24] In R. v. M. G. , [1994] N. J. Mo. 285 (Nlfd. Prov. Crt.), Hyslop, J. imposed a disposition of two years secure custody followed by one year of probation on a thirteen year old female first offender for a home invasion robbery. Hyslop, J. pointed out that due to her tragic upbringing, the young female was a threat to society and required extensive rehabilitation.

[25] In R. v. I. Y. H. P. , [2000] B. C. J. No.1713, 2000 BCPC 67 (B. C. Prov. Crt.), Auxier, J. imposed a disposition of two years secure custody after taking into account time spent in pre-trial custody, followed by one year of probation on a seventeen year old male first time offender for a home invasion robbery involving a significant degree of planning.

[26] As is the case with adults, it is clear incarceration of young offenders has been used for home invasion robberies. In my opinion, the reason for doing so can best be expressed by the following quote from Matwiy supra at page 263:

"We are of the view that the home invasion robbery merit a higher starting- point sentence than the armed robbery of a bank or commercial institution. While offences of violence are abhorrent wherever they occur, offences which strike at the right of members of the public to the security of their own homes and to freedom from intrusion therein, must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Individuals in their own homes have few of the security devices available to commercial institutions. They are often alone, with little hope that help will arrive. Such offences, whether they result in injuries or not, are almost always terrifying, traumatic experiences for the occupants of the residences often leaving them with a total loss of any sense of security. "

[27] Counsel for the Young Person provided me with two authorities to consider in my deliberations. The first case is R. v. J. C. S . [1997] A. J. No. 209 (Alta C. A. ). In this case, the Court of Appeal upheld a non-custodial disposition imposed on a young offender by Prowse-O'Ferrall, J. for robberies of pharmacies while masked. The sole basis, however, for not imposing custody was concern for the young offender's suicide risk if incarcerated. In my opinion, that case is not applicable to the facts of this case for two important reasons. First, neither the report by Dr. Sirota nor Dr. Abdel-Keriem indicates that depression or suicide is an issue. Second, the offences in that case involved the robberies of pharmacies and not a dwelling house.

[28] The second case is a decision of Cook-Stanhope J. in R. v. B. K. , 2000 ABPC 125 (Alta. Prov. Crt. ). This case involved a young offender who entered guilty pleas to robbing a convenience store while armed and masked and received a non-custodial disposition of probation, a personal service order, a community service order, and a compensation order. In my opinion, this case is distinguishable from the case at bar for three important reasons. First, although both the Young Person in this case and in B. K . received positive probation reports, the young offender in B. K . participated in successful community conferences which allowed all affected parties to come to terms with the offences committed. Second, the offence in B. K . was the robbery of a convenience store. Third, Cook-Stanhope, J. found B. K . to be truly remorseful for the crime he committed. Based on the report by Dr. Abdel-Keriem, I am not convinced the Young Person has accepted full responsibility, and that he is truly remorseful.

[29] I have therefore decided, based on my review of the relevant authorities, that a custodial disposition is warranted. I have come to this conclusion cognizant of the provisions of section 24 of the Y.O.A. which mandate that incarceration be viewed as an option of last resort for young offenders. I am of the opinion, however, that denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public are factors as significant as rehabilitation that must be taken into account in the sentencing of this Young Person when dealing with a home invasion robbery.

[30] I am not aware of any starting point decision by the Court of Appeal for home invasion robberies involving young offenders. I am guided by the decisions of my colleagues, but in view of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in McDonnell v. The Queen , 114 C. C. C. (3d) 436, I do not feel constrained to impose any minimum period of custody. Each disposition must be decided on its facts. The procedure established for determining the length of custody by the Court of Appeal in Matwiy supra is, however, most useful. I therefore propose to briefly examine the aggravating and mitigating factors.

[31] Aggravating factors as set forth in Matwiy supra to be considered by a sentencing Judge are as follows: whether force was used on the occupants, whether the occupants suffered injuries as a result, the length of confinement in the home, whether terror was used, the discharge of firearms, gang activity, prior record for violent offences, and the value of property stolen.

[32] Mitigating factors as set forth in Matwiy supra to be considered by a sentencing Judge are as follows: the age of the accused, the accused's background, the lack of planning, and an early guilty plea. To this list, I would add the following as additional mitigating factors: the lack of any prior record, the level of co- operation with the police, the contents of any probation or psychological/psychiatric reports ordered by the Court, and any time spent in pre- disposition detention.

[33] Based on the facts of the present case, the following aggravating factors are present. Force was used on the Victim. The Victim injured his neck trying to untie himself. The Victim Impact Statement makes it clear that subsequent to the home invasion robbery, he suffered trauma, depression, anxiety, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, and an inability to return to work. During the home invasion, the Victim was terrorized, confined, and tied-up for a duration of time. Finally, the value of the property stolen was substantial and included the BMW, in excess of $1,000 in property, and through use of the debit card and charge card, a further sum in excess of $1,000.

[34] Based on the facts of the present case, the following mitigating factors are present. At the time the offences were committed, the Young Person was a few months shy of his sixteenth birthday. He has no prior record. He entered guilty pleas at a relatively early stage in these proceedings. He comes from a dysfunctional family environment in which he suffered physical abuse. This abuse may or may not have allowed the Young Person to succumb to the ravages of crack cocaine. The Young Person remained compliant with his release conditions. Finally, the Young Person spent fifteen days on remand status prior to his release.

[35] The psychological and psychiatric reports present, in my opinion, a generally optimistic tone for rehabilitation. Dr. Sirota is of the opinion that the prognosis for rehabilitation is positive and recommends counselling to deal with a number of issues. Of particular concern to Dr. Sirota, however, is the Young Person's anger, addictions, family of origin issues and

". . . an internalized sense of right versus wrong" as well as difficulty with authority. Dr. Abdel-Keriem diagnosis is not as reassuring. In addition to a number of personality issues which will require extensive counselling, Dr. Abdel-Keriem also questions the Young Person's degree of remorsefulness and the fact that he blames external factors for his behaviour.

[36] I am informed that the Co-accused, also a young offender, received a global disposition of three years secure less credit of one year for time in pre-disposition detention for these offences and a number of other unrelated serious offences. I am also informed the Co-accused had a significant prior record at the time of his disposition.

DECISION

[37] Having regard to the facts of this case and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the fifteen days spent in pre-disposition detention, I am of the opinion that a fit and just custodial disposition would be fourteen months open custody.

[38] In addition, there will be a period of probation of twelve months following the Young Person's release from custody. The terms of the probation order are as follows:

(1) The Young Person shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

(2) The Young Person shall appear before the Court when required by the Court to do so;

(3) The Young Person shall notify the Clerk of the Court, the Provincial Y. O. A.

Director or the probation officer assigned to his case, of any change of address or any change in place of employment, education or training;

(4) The Young Person shall be under the supervision of the Provincial Y. O. A. Director, including reporting to a probation officer as directed;

(5) The Young Person shall reside in such place as the Provincial Y. O. A. Director shall approve;

(6) The Young Person shall attend school on time and for the full duration of each school day subject to the approval of the school principal, or make reasonable efforts to obtain and maintain suitable employment;

(7) The Young Person shall not possess any knives, clubs, or other weapons, imitations of weapons, or other articles capable of being used as weapons;

(8) The Young Person shall refrain from association with the Co-accused as well as the Victim and his family, whether directly or indirectly;

(9) The Young Person shall attend for assessment and counselling as directed by the Provincial Director, including but without limitation, anger management and substance abuse/addictions;

(10) The Young Person shall refrain absolutely from the possession or consumption of any intoxicants and non-prescription restricted drugs; and

(11) The Young Person shall attend for random drug and/or alcohol testing as directed by the Provincial Director.

[39] Further, and pursuant to section 109 of the Code , as modified by section 20. 1(2) of the Y. O. A ., there will be a ten year weapons prohibition.

[40] With respect to the guilty plea entered by the Young Person pursuant to section

279(1.1)(b) of the Code , this is a primary designated offence as set forth in section 487.04 of

the Code . The applicable section with respect to the taking of DNA sample(s) for this offence is 487.051(1)(a). That section indicates that the taking of a number of samples is mandatory, subject to the exception noted in section 487.051(2). I am satisfied that with respect to the taking of samples from the Young Person, the impact on his privacy and security would not be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society and the proper administration of justice, to be achieved through the early detection, arrest and conviction of offenders.

[41] Although redundant by virtue of my ruling above, I also note that the charge of robbery while using a firearm to which the Young Person has entered a guilty plea is classified as a secondary designated offence. Pursuant to section 487.051(1)(b) of the Code , I have considered the lack of any prior record by the Young Person, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the effect of this order on the Young Person's privacy and security. The only factor that militates against this order is the lack of any prior record. Having regard, however, to the seriousness of this offence, that the taking of the sample(s) may only cause him some minor inconvenience and embarrassment, and the fact there is no evidence before me that he has any great aversion to this procedure, I am satisfied that it is in the bests interests of the administration of justice that a DNA Order also be granted for this offence.

[42] I would be remiss if I did not add my observation to the effect that not every offer to attend a community conference by a young offender is evidence of true remorsefulness, nor is it a basis to argue for a non-custodial disposition. The Victim's reason for refusing to participate in such a conference in this case is at least as valid as the Young Person's offer to participate in the conference, assuming the latter is truly remorseful.

DATED at the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, this 4th day of July, 2002.

S. E. Lipton

Judge, The Provincial Court of Alberta

________________________________________________

CORRIGENDUM OF THE JUDGMENT

OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.E. LIPTON

______________________________________________

Paragraph number 40 has been changed in its entirety. Paragraph number 41, formerly 40 has been changed as follows:

Sentences 1 and 2 (old par. 40):

"Finally, the Young Person will provide a sample of his DNA. The offences to which the Young Person has entered guilty pleas are classified as secondary designated offences."

are deleted and substituted with the following one sentence (new par. 41):

"Although redundant by virtue of my ruling above, I also note that the charge of robbery while using a firearm to which the Young Person has entered a guilty plea is classified as a secondary designated offence."

Sentence 3,(old par. 40) Sentence 2 ( new par. 41) - the word "offences" is changed to "offence" and "their" is changed to "its".

Sentence number 5, (old par. 40) Sentence 4 (new par. 41) - the words "these offences" are changed to read " this offence" and also in the same sentence the words "the order be granted" are changed to read "a DNA Order also be granted for this offence."

Paragraph 41 becomes 42 with no changes.