As a society, we recognize that young people who commit crimes should not be held to the same moral and legal standards as adults. We know that because the adolescent brain is still developing, young people are more impulsive, more susceptible to peer pressure, and less capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. For that reason, Canada’s justice system treats youth differently from adults.
But what happens when a young person commits a serious crime? Should they still be tried and sentenced as a youth? Or are there situations where they should be sentenced as adults?
These are some of the questions that underlie youth justice, which is governed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The answer depends on several factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s age and maturity, and whether a youth sentence would be long enough to hold them accountable. The law in this area continues to evolve, but was recently addressed in a pair of Supreme Court of Canada decisions; R. v. I.M. and R. v. S.B. clarify when and how a youth can be sentenced as an adult under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).
What Is “Diminished Moral Blameworthiness”?
When considering youth sentences, one key concept is “diminished moral blameworthiness.” Section 3 of the YCJA sets out the presumption that young people are less morally responsible for their actions than adults, on account of their reduced maturity and strong capacity for change, among other reasons.
In some cases, the Crown may argue that the presumption should be rebutted and that the youth in question should be held to the same standard as an adult. However, this is not an easy bar to meet. As R. v. I.M. shows, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness should not apply.
The Legal Standard for the Presumption of Diminished Moral Blameworthiness
R. v. I.M.: Establishing the 2-Part Test for Sentencing a Youth as an Adult
R. v. I.M. revolves around an accused person who committed an armed robbery at 17 years old. During the robbery, he beat and stabbed another teenager to death. The accused was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced as an adult based on the trial judge’s assessment of his maturity level.
The trial judge’s sentence was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal but subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court, which imposed a youth sentence of years in custody followed by four years of conditional supervision.
The Supreme Court found that the sentencing judge failed to apply the correct legal standard. The judge did not adequately consider the young offender’s developmental age and capacity for moral judgment, and the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Significantly, this case confirmed the two-part test that courts must apply when deciding whether to impose an adult sentence on a young person:
- Has the Crown rebutted the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Is a youth sentence sufficient to hold the young person accountable for the crime?
Only the first prong, however, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
R. v. S.B.: Presumption in Favour of Youth Sentencing
In R. v. S.B., the 16-year-old defendant shot another teenager in the head. He, too, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced as an adult to life in prison with no parole for 10 years.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the sentence but failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the presumption of moral blameworthiness should not apply. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found that the sentence should stand, given that the outcome would not have changed even if the correct legal standard had been used.
Taken together, R. v. I.M. and R. v. S.B. reinforce that there is currently a strong presumption in favour of youth sentencing.
The Legal Framework for Sentencing a Youth as an Adult
These two decisions sit within a broader legal framework that is worth noting. Section 13 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that no child under 12 years old can be charged with or convicted of a criminal offence in Canada. Youth aged 12 to 17 fall under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which emphasizes rehabilitation, reintegration, and accountability appropriate to the person’s age.
But there are some notable exceptions. The YCJA allows for adult sentencing of youth aged 14 and older in the following circumstances:
- The youth is charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault;
- The youth is found guilty of committing a serious offence for the third time; or
- The youth is charged with an indictable offence, or a serious violent offence, and the Crown requests an adult sentence.
In making this determination, judges must consider multiple factors, including:
- The seriousness and circumstances of the offence
- The youth’s age and maturity level
- Their potential for rehabilitation
- Any mitigating or aggravating factors
- The youth’s prior record or background
Only when a youth sentence is deemed insufficient to hold the young offender accountable will courts impose an adult sentence.
Youth Sentencing Remains a Complex Issue in Canadian Criminal Law
The recent decisions of R. v. I.M. and R. v. S.B. highlight the tension between two core goals of the youth justice system:
- Protecting public safety and ensuring accountability for serious crimes, and
- Acknowledging the developmental differences of youth and supporting their rehabilitation.
In attempting to strike this balance, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness can be rebutted—and adult sentences may be imposed—but only when these measures are justified and backed by compelling evidence.
The question of when a young person can be sentenced as an adult has both legal and moral dimensions. There are no easy answers. As complex cases continue to move through the courts, both the justice system and the public will grapple with this most challenging issue.
Contact the Criminal Defence Lawyers at Barrison & Manitius for Exceptional Representation for Young Offenders in Oshawa
The experienced criminal defence lawyers at Barrison & Manitius in Oshawa represent young offenders across the Durham Region who are facing a range of charges from theft and assault to drug and weapons offences. Our team understands the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding young offender charges and works closely with clients, regardless of their age, to ensure they are positioned to obtain the best possible outcome. To learn more about how we can help, contact us online or call our office at 905-404-1947 to speak with a member of our team.