OTTAWA - Forcing violent young offenders to prove they should not face adult prison terms violates their constitutional rights, a deeply divided Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

In a split 5-4 decision, the court struck down reverse onus sentencing provisions for the most serious crimes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

"A presumption of diminished moral culpability in young persons is fundamental to our notions of how a fair legal system ought to operate," Justice Rosie Abella wrote for the majority.

Demanding that young offenders prove to the court why they shouldn't get an adult term for crimes including murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault "clearly deprives young people of the benefit of (that) presumption," said the judgment.

The court was ruling on the case of "D.B.," a 17-year-old from Hamilton, Ont., who pleaded guilty to manslaughter following a 2003 fight in which he was the aggressor.

The Crown wanted to give D.B., who was already under two probation orders, a five-year adult sentence, but he was sentenced to three years of youth detention.

The Supreme Court judgment, while technically narrow in scope, casts into constitutional law the fundamental legal difference between youths and adults. As such, it is sure to feed a political and social debate on the treatment of young offenders.

"If policymakers thought they could just revamp the youth justice system to make it mirror the adult system, they're mistaken," observed David MacAlister, director of the Institute for Studies in Criminal Justice Policy at Simon Fraser University.

The ruling came as Statistics Canada reported Friday that while the overall youth crime rate is falling, homicides by young offenders reached their highest point on record in 2006.

It's an issue that has preoccupied the legislative agenda of the current Conservative government.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in November he would scrap the reverse onus provision for youth sentencing and simply make adult sentences mandatory for the most serious crimes.

But the change has been put on hold and its fate was unclear in light of the judgment.

"I am disappointed about this decision and its implications for the youth criminal justice system," Nicholson said in a release Friday.

"I take note of the dissenting opinion of four justices, which defended Parliament's ability to balance the appropriate treatment of young offenders with the public interest in safety."

Nicholson said a government review of the act will continue "to ensure that sentences are proportional to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender."

The ruling does not mean adolescents cannot serve adult sentences.

"The issue in this case, however, is who has the burden of proving that an adult sentence is justified," said the Supreme Court majority.

There's also nothing in the decision to stop governments from attempting to toughen up the Youth Criminal Justice Act, said MacAlister.

"It will be a matter of ironing out how far the government can go in terms of bringing in policy change."

But the academic said he can't see how the Tory proposal to make adult sentences automatic for serious youth crimes can now pass muster.

"It certainly would be counter to the spirit or intention underlying the majority's judgment," said MacAlister.

The ruling also means the Crown must now prove why a publication ban on naming young offenders should be lifted if an adult sentence is applied.

Four of the nine justices dissented, writing that it is "entirely appropriate" for Parliament to weigh the competing interests of public safety and the reduced moral blameworthiness of violent young offenders.

"First, there is no such thing as a youth sentence in the abstract," Justice Marshall Rothstein wrote for the dissenting judges.

"What constitutes a youth sentence as opposed to an adult sentence depends on the particular legislative sanctions in force at the relevant time."

Heidi Illingworth, executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, said her police-funded organization does not have a problem with the onus being put back on the Crown to justify adult sentences.

"But at the same time we want to make sure the Crowns are moving ahead (advocating stiffer sentences) in these serious violent crime cases," she said.

Craig Jones of the John Howard Society said the whole notion of reverse onus in the law is coming under judicial scrutiny.

"With luck, Canadians will find that the court defends a principle-based regime against a regime of expediency and political opportunism," said Jones.

While the legal provisions overturned Friday were put in place by the previous Liberal government in 2002, Liberal justice critic Marlene Jennings welcomed the court decision.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, she said, "has all of the tools necessary in order to ensure that our youth criminal justice system works and works well.

Conservatives, said Jennings, "have to stop putting their ideology above science and the facts and court reason."

Currently, a first-degree murder conviction carries a maximum youth sentence of 10 years, compared to a mandatory life term - with no chance of parole for 25 years - under adult sentencing.

Youth murder cases, while relatively rare, tend to be high profile.

A Regina teen, convicted of killing a Good Samaritan on Boxing Day 2006, is currently awaiting sentencing in a case that highlights the sentencing disparities.

The 17-year-old faces seven years in custody if he's sentenced as a youth; life with no eligibility for parole for seven years if sentenced as an adult.

LIKE IT?  LET OTHERS KNOW

Thanks for participating!

Be the first to recommend - Sign in now


See what other people are recommending - Popular Stories