Winnipeg Free Press

After the sentencing of this 17-year-old last Friday, I keep coming back to this recent story about the plight of correctional officers who work at the MYC. And this one as well. And hey, if you have the time to spare, read this one too.
While officially, CO’s and those who manage them will say that the sun continues to shine on youth corrections, and that risks to officer safety while working have been minimized to every possible extent, there’s been too many examples recently showing that CO’s have their backs against the wall (literally) when it comes to dealing with inmates in the youth corrections system.

I hold up some of the details from last Friday’s sentencing of the 17-year-old youth as an example. Let’s not forget this was the kid given a probationary sentence for court-order breaches and then denied bail on new charges by the same judge right afterwards.

I’ll begin with Crown attorney Lisa Carson’s submissions at the bail hearing on the fresh charges:

The youth has a “demonstrated track-record of violence,” she said, adding the boy was not a candidate for release on bail “by any stretch of the imagination.”

Carson said that in the afternoon of Jun. 24, the boy and a co-accused allegedly:

Began covering the windows of their rooms with paper so that the CO’s couldn’t see in and began yelling and banging on their doors.

Carson said the youths had both somehow smashed cafeteria trays and used the wired supports inside to make “shanks” with which to stab the guards. Essentially, they were 4″ pieces of metal wire wrapped in cloth at one end so their paws don’t get cut. They have been sharpened, according to police reports.
The CERU team (high-risk emergency response team) are dispatched and remove the weapons from the two.

They’re taken to Agassiz Youth Centre in Portage la Prairie and put under guard.
But that’s not all. Not by a long shot.
One of the two allegedy was heard saying: “I’m gonna shank the (CERU) team when they get here,” to which the other responded: “I’ve got two shanks for them.”

After the CERU team (essentially a riot and containment squad) safely removed the 17-year-old from his cell at about 2:30 in the morning, he’s alleged to have told an officer, “Next time I’ll take a hostage.”

There are four staff members who allegedly witnessed the event, Carson said. Many of their police statements corroborate each others, but one of them creates a shocking picture of what life’s really like and who really seems to call the shots at the MYC.
Here’s a snippet of the official transcript from the court proceedings, names removed because I’m in a good mood

Carson: Basically the third (CO) heard the teen say to the other “I’ve got two shanks in my room for when the tem comes over.” She asks (the two) whether any of them have weapons to which (one) denied it and (the other) said ‘yes.’

(one) turned over the remnants of the cafeteria tray and stated ‘I have three shanks in my room.’ He turned over two of the three shanks to this individual and almost turned over the third when they were interrupted and changed his mind and decided to keep the third shank.

And, I’m just going to pause at this moment because I read this paragraph and then I turned to the statements because I wanted to see what that was all about — it sounds like (he’s) calling the shots here in custody. He’s asked by the female worker to turn over the weapons, and it’s sort of like he’s making a deal with her, ‘okay, sure I’ll give them to you. He’s passing them under the door to her. And then when the male staff member comes along, he says — and I actually highlighted it in the statement — he says to the two workers at this point, ‘never mind, the deal’s off,’ — I was prepared to give it to her, but I’m not prepared to give it to you.

It’s concerning that he’s got these weapons, he’s wheeling and dealing as to whether he complies with the correctional authorities or not. In any event, two of the three weapons were turned over to this female.

The police take a statement from a fourth individual who she says she heard (him) say to the co-accused, ‘let’s cause a disturbance to get this place on lockdown.’ He follows it up with a comment to (the other), ‘when you go out to take a shower, jump the staff then, and make a mess of the bathroom when you go.’ And that’s the information provided by the fourth staff member basically indicating that (he) was encouraging the other resident to cause a disturbance and potentially attack the staff at the youth centre.

The youth centre staff contact police and indicate they’d like to proceed with charges against these two individuals…Just in terms of the statement of the female staff who the accused was apparently making a deal with to turn over the weapons, what he says is — he’s in the process of handing the weapons to her, he hears the male’s voice and he says ‘the deal’s off, I’m only dealing with you (CO), not you, (other CO). And then he pulls the weapon back into his bedroom and holds on to it. He’s not at that point prepared to turn it over…

I can tell you that it’s significant, the impact on the individuals at the youth centre, because I read with some interest one of the female correctional staff’s comments, when police asked her: ‘were you threatened by (the accused?), and her response was, ‘not directly, no — having those weapons in there was not a good feeling.’ So while she indicated she wasn’t directly threatened by these individuals, having to deal with securing significantly violent weapons is certainly a concern to her.

Wheeling and dealing. A kid with a history of violence and who makes weapons and threatens to take hostages “next time.” Felling insecure because you don’t know which kid has the next “shank” which may be used to threaten you.

Youth corrections officers are people who are “armed” only with handcuffs and small -very small- flashlights. They’re inside a locked facility with some of our province’s most dangerous people - made even more dangerous perhaps by the fact they they’re kids with sometimes little sense of consequence or remorse.

To be fair, what Carson said in court are only allegations that have not been proven yet. Kathy Bueti, the lawyer for the teen, says there are serious issues with how police conducted the investigation, and which correctional guard heard what and when. (Aside: If you’re a young offender accused of a crime, hire Bueti. Her force of argument in court is nothing short of amazing.)
But hearing all this simply confirmed my own suspicions that things on the inside are kind of a Gangsta’s paradise and that Corrections — Corrections — officers meant to help kids turn their lives around, aren’t treated with the ‘kid gloves’ by that they should be, given the rotten apples they deal with. They do the job few people could, or would, want to do.

CO’s call me from time to time to tell me of the latest incident. They do so at great risk to their own livelihood, as they’re forbidden to talk with the media without authorization, they’ve told me.

Here’s hoping they get a new contract with the province hammered out soon. They’ve been without one for a while.

What you see below is something new I’m going to be trying out from time to time, namely live blogging from the courthouse or crime scene when I can. If the awesome folks at WordPress can finally get their interface for the iPhone figured out, I’ll be doing it a lot, including pictures from where ever I’m at.

Regrets for the lack of posts recently. I’ve been trying to drum up one that’s concise about the finer details of this story, but I confess, there’s enough in this one young offender’s case history and background to write a true-crime novel on. I’m gonna leave that to the experts, however (for the time being…)

—-

And the verdict:
—

A 14-year-old youth — described as a ‘relentless offender’ by a probation officer — was sentenced to five months deferred custody and a long stint of probation for his role in a March 29 incident linked to the death of a Winnipeg cab driver.
The teen was a passenger in a stolen Chevy Silverado that skidded off Portage Avenue moments before a Chevrolet Avalanche sped through a red light and slammed into Antonio Lanzellotti’s cab.
The passengers in both vehicles were together throughout the evening and were in the process of fleeing from police when the incident occurred.
“It’s astounding to me that your vehicle too wasn’t in a collision,” Provincial Court Judge Rocky Pollack told the teen this morning as he handed down his verdict.
As a result of his sentence the teen will now be fitted with an ankle bracelet that will monitor his movements. The deferred custody order means the boy will be released but if he violates any of his release conditions he’ll serve the rest of his sentence locked up.

—–

Court is back in session. Just waiting on the teen to return to the courtroom.

—-
Judge Rocky Pollack has taken a recess to consider how to appropriately sentence the teen. In the interim, I ran into Serena Puranen, the defense lawyer for “Tina,” the girl who was featured in a lengthy blog post below.

Tina was sentenced yesterday to probation, Puranen said. “Probation is her parent,” she added, largely due to the failings of her parents and CFS to step in to help her.
——
Crown attorney Liz Pats has asked the teen recieve a six month deferred custody order for the teen, along with an immediate entry into the electronic ankle bracelet program.
—-

There was a long discussion in court about the merits of the ankle bracelets and that they seem to be deterring chronic auto thieves. More on this in a bit [In fact, it’s a story in tomorrow’s paper].
—-
A Provincial court judge has granted bail to the 17-year-old boy accused of second degree murder in connection with the death of a 30-year-old Winnipeg man.
I’m in court blogging this on the fly. I’ll have more details for you on this later today. There’s a publication ban on the case, so in fact, there’s not much else to say other than the youth has some pretty strict conditions to abide by while awaiting trial. He also must post what amounts to a $10,000 surety and $1,000 recognizance.
In moments, a teenager accused of being in the stolen suv that killed a Winnipeg cab driver in late march will be sentenced for his crimes. He was just led in in leg irons. [Correction: the youth was a passenger in the other vehicle linked to that night. I apologize for the error.]

I’m not a huge fan of statistics, as they’re often skewed or can be construed in too many different ways to paint a clear picture.

That being said, there’s no denying that today’s numbers out of Stats Canada showing that Manitoba lays claim to the dubious title that so many gang-bangers love to label our province -Murda Cap - should give each and every one of us cause for alarm. Not because of the amount of murders, but because who’s being fingered as committing the bulk of them.

It’s kids. The same ones that fall under the “rehab” focused YCJA. Sixty-two murders in Manitoba last year, and more than half were committed by people under the age of 18.

What’s worse is that Crown prosecutors and police have noticed and commented on the concerning uptick in seriously violent youth crime, and yet, here we are today, well into 2008 now and the following has happened:

A 17-year-old charged with criminal negligence causing death in the pellet gun death of 13-year-old Cody Shuya. The two knew each other.

A 16-year-old charged with aggravated assault and second-degree murder for the death of a 30-year-old Winnipegger in May. For more background on this, go here. (language warning)

Another 16-year-old ‘babysitter’ charged with the homicide of a 9-year-old boy on God’s Lake First Nation. Sources tell me when the facts of this case come out, the general public will be revolted at what happened. Unofficially: it’s grisly and as nasty as any murder can get.

Another teen charged with the murder of a relative at a party on Pacific Avenue just weeks ago.

Another boy charged with manslaughter in connection to the vehicular death of Antonio Lanzellotti, a cab driver killed by a stolen SUV on Mar. 29. The teen, fingered as the driver of the stolen Chevy Avalanche,

And probably the worst one I can think of: A 15-year-old charged with three counts of 1st degree murder and three counts of attempted murder in connection to the gang-related slayings of Scott Lavallee, Corey Keeper and Jennifer Ward — guests at a house party on Alexander Avenue also on Mar. 29.

I had been waiting for months to lay eyes on this particular boy, and I finally got my chance sitting in court this week. To be quite honest, I was taken aback by how at-ease he seemed with the whole court process. He gave me a cold glare as I was looking at him sitting in the prisoner’s box. His eyes were empty.

Crown attorney Lisa Carson told the court that prosecutors would be seeking an adult sentence if he’s convicted of the crimes.
I’m probably forgetting a few, and I haven’t even begun to count the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults — like the “snowball stabbing” of Trevor Denning over the winter — allegedly committed by the hands of two boys with a vendetta against him. The two face a jury — but thankfully not of their ‘peers’ — next week.

Then there’s also the ‘dumpster boy’ beating where the victim was essentially left to die by his three attackers, one of them a 15-year-old from Garden Hill First Nation.

Fact is, there’s a serious problem here in Manitoba with young offenders. It’s clear. We ask police, probation officers, prosecutors and others in the system to clean up the mess even though they all clearly say (at least they’ve all expressed this to me in their different vernaculars):

“The justice system’s not set up to deal with the real problems here, but we continually ask it to and it’s not working.”

Things are getting worse, not better — and that’s not fear mongering. It’s reality. And it’s complex. There are no quick fixes.
I urge anyone who cares about the future of youth justice to read the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act carefully.

If you don’t like what you see, make yourself heard.

A 15-year-old girl sentenced in youth court today should thank her lucky stars for her mom’s big heart. Here’s why:

Last November, the girl and a couple of friends went to the Zellers store on McPhillips (Zellers is a popular shoplifting spot for kids, I’ve learned) and stole $80 worth of cosmetics. No big, right? All kids do dumb things. Anyhow, they get caught and charge is laid. It would have been diverted away from the youth justice system if it hadn’t just been the tip of the iceberg for this girl.

Exactly two months later, the girl’s mom comes home from a Christmas party to find a hole had been gouged into her bedroom door, and that a bottle of prescription pills was missing from her purse. She soon learns that the 15-year-old has taken the medication and the girl loses her cool and begins to have a meltdown, hurling objects willy-nilly. The mom uses the broken door as a shield.

Her daughter goes on to punch a hole through a living room window, breaking her hand as a result. The mother calls two relatives over to the home, who try to subdue her. The girl tosses a small flat-screen television set at one of them, which somebody manages to catch. Eventually, the melee ends when the female relatives pin the girl to the ground. They’re repaid by having the teen threaten them with harm.

The teen saves the worst threat for the mom, who’s probably watching this all happen.

She said she was going to “stab her in her sleep,” Crown attorney Lisa Carson said in court today.

Police attend the home and take the girl into custody. She says she no longer wants to live with mom. Mom says she no longer wants the girl to live with her. She’s cautioned and charged in “the usual police manner” and taken to the MYC. Two days later she’s granted bail and released to CFS.

Exactly one month later, she and a pal are out running an errand with their group-home worker in the worker’s car, a Sunfire. The worker leaves the car for just a moment with the keys in the ignition, and —you guessed it — the duo make off with the car. City police couldn’t locate them, but RCMP found them later at place in Selkirk. Both are shipped off back to the MYC and released on bail about a week later. This time, the 15-year-old is put on the Youth Bail Management program, which is similar in nature to the intensive support and supervision kids are put on when out on probation.

Not long after, the teen’s alleged to have breached her conditions, and goes underground. A warrant is issued for her arrest. It’s not until mid-May that she’s caught at a group-home in the south side of Winnipeg and arrested. Police, for whatever reason, release her on a promise to appear. It comes out in court that it’s “not clear” if police quickly communicated to bail workers that the girl was found and let go.

However, between May 23 and June 3, she’s alleged to have breached her bail conditions again, but she cannot be found. She’s reported as a missing person to police. June 5, she’s caught and arrested at a Selkirk Avenue school and sent back to the MYC, where she’s been ever since.

Defense lawyer Serena Puranen said what’s different about the girl is that she’s one of the rare cases that acknowledges she has problems, and is angry for an unknown reason.

“She’s aware of her issues - she’s not in denial,” Puranen said. Despite the meltdown at home six months ago, the teen and her mom are trying to come to terms with what happened and move on toward help. The teen says she’s “all for” going to counselling upon release.

Judge Rocky Pollack asked the mom directly what the relatives think about the girl returning home.

“They think I’m a little crazy,” the woman said.

Pollack imposed a two-year probation order on the girl, saying that if the courts don’t interfere in her life now, then the likelihood of her getting jail-time in the future increases exponentially.

Pollack called the resources made available to youths on probation “a life preserver.”

He also ordered that the girl make herself available to give a DNA sample which will go into a national databank.

The judge commented that ordering the DNA is one of the few ways that ‘deterrence’ is part of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as the very thought that police can trace a suspect’s hair or fibre back to a crime scene should be enough to keep anyone out of trouble.

He also ordered the girl to abstain completely from drugs and alcohol.

“Any times you’ve decided to get high, they’re over now,” Pollack warned.

He also made the odd point after sentencing the girl to ask who did the driving in the stolen car incident in February.

“(The other girl),” the teen said.

I know that if it was my mom, bless her heart, there’s no way I’d be allowed back. Someone give this woman a bouquet.

As promised - below is the complete transcription of a back and forth between Judge Michel Chartier and a 17-year-old boy that pled guilty to three counts of assault and was sentenced last Friday. When asked to speak by the Judge, what came out of the teen’s mouth electrified the courtroom. It was arguably one of the most intelligent and well-spoken submissions made by a youth ever heard in the small courtroom. It should be noted that the teen didn’t knw yet what his sentence would actually be, as it was at Chartier’s discretion to go higher or lower than the pre-sentencing report indicated would provide a “meaningful consequence” to the boy. Hope you find it as interesting as I did.

Chartier: Is there anything you want to tell me?

Teen: Yes sir. First of all, in the time I’ve spent here, I regret the things that happened that day and yes, I want to say I’m sorry and apologize to those people. I’d like to write an apology letter if I could, and, I just want to know that they’re okay and…I know what I did is wrong, of course…yea, I see it now, I seen it then, It’s just…I don’t know…the way I was thinking at that time, I guess, just wanted to help out a family member and obviously I didn’t do it in the right way, but, I don’t know, I’m sorry man, just totally, man…I made the wrong choices and I just - I’m learning — trying to learn from my mistakes and take responsibility for my actions, and what I’m trying to do now is just change. Hopefully make a better way for my family and me, myself and others. Thanks a lot.

C: You plead guilty to 3 counts of assault with a weapon.

T: Yes sir.

C: And one failure to comply with a prior court order.

T:…

C: I can tell you that I read the pre-sentence report that was prepared in anticipation of today, and on one hand I have someone before me who seems to be complying well with strict probation

T: Yes sir.

C: you seem to be doing well on ISSP, you obviously have support structures in your life over and above probation

T: Yes sir.

C: But on the other hand, it hasn’t yet translated into your ability to control making the dumb choices that you’re making.

T: That’s what I’m working on, sir.

C: I hear that from you now, and I’m happy to hear that from you. You’ve got some time left in probation.

T: Yes sir.

C: FIx what needs to be fixed to get you back on track because, as your lawyer put it, once you’re 18, it’s a whole new set of rules.

T: I understand.

C: I’m not sure that the rules…I’m not sure you want to be facing those rules.

T: Yes sir… (inaudible)

C: Because unfortunately, you’re going into you 18th birthday with some baggage.

T: I see that.

C: And it makes your integration into adulthood a little tougher for you, so you have to be more vigilant. You’re obviously capable of staying on the straight and narrow, You’re obviously capable of working towards getting back on track. My job is to make sure that the sentence you’re about to receive has meaningful consequences on you.

T:Yes. I agree.

C: Having heard from you, and having heard from your counsel, and especially in light of the contents of your pre-sentence report, I am satisfied that 49 days in custody has sent you the proper message, given you the proper message, That you get it.

T: Yes sir.

C: I’m hopeful that that’s the case….you’re going to be on probation well into your 18th birthday

T: I understand.

C: And the terms of that probation are strict.

T: Yes.

C: So I’m going to sentence you to time served….time served though of 49 days is the equivalent of a 75 day sentence.

T: Yes sir.

C: You understand that it’s a pretty long time for you.

T: Yeah.

C: Sentences don’t get any better, they don’t get any shorter…in addition to that I have no choice but to impose a DNA order.

T: Yes. Yup.

C: They’re going to come and take a sample of DNA from you. I have no choice.

T: No problem.

C: and In addition to that…I agree with Crown counsel that I need to prohibit you from possessing any weapons for a certain period of time.

T: Oh yeah.

C: And I’m of the view that a two-year period because of the circumstances isn’t inappropriate….

T: Yep. I agree.

C: I wish you luck.

T: Thank you.

Another week, and another two-160 page notebooks filled. It’s been a busy time on the youth justice front, what with:

A crime spree involving four teens and an allegedly stolen Dodge Durango involving a dysfunctional and forbidden love affair.

A year-old aggravated assault case awoken after one of the parties turns himself in after a year on the run.

Another aggravated assault outside a Burrows avenue grocery store (more on this below),

An unresolved bail hearing for a 16-year-old accused of the second-degree murder of a 30-year-old man in Point Douglas on May 16. (more below)
Further facts behind Winnipeg’s youth auto thieves and their recalcitrant attitudes and bizarre courting rituals.

A teen girl famous for laughing at the death of a cab driver is set free again.

Two youths that escaped from Agassiz Youth Centre last week are hauled back into lawful custody.

The tragic story of a “remorseless” 12-year-old that pleaded guilty to burning down a $200,000 home — and —

A 17-year-old boy who “famously” escaped from the youth centre in September and spent the next six months on the run, only to return to a hero’s welcome from some inmates.
Plus:

—

Another teen is now out $625 in cash and his stash of four joints after he was nabbed by police and nailed on a drug-trafficking charge. He also had a locked cell-phone in his pockets, which will be returned to him, unlike the drugs and money. As a condition of his sentence, the B-Side gang member was hit with an absolute laundry-list of “no contact” orders - he’s forbidden to talk, text, phone or pass messages through a third party with any of the 21 other known members of the gang.
—

Another teenager was due to enter a guilty plea for trafficking after officers found him allegedly in possession of 73 rocks of crack cocaine. He steps into the prisoner’s box and indicates “yes” when asked if he had the drugs on him.

When Judge Michel Chartier probed further to ask if he had the drugs on him in order to sell them, the kid becomes confused — borderline angry — and denies that they were for sale, thus making incomplete his guilty plea. Defense lawyer Chris Sigurdson — a veteran at defending youth cases — looked a little shocked when the kid didn’t admit to the trafficking aspect of the charge (he had probably spent half an hour trying to tell the youth what that meant).

The matter was stood down for a short period to allow Sigurdson a chance to pep his client up once again. A short time later, he re-appeared in the court to say, tongue firmly in cheek, that the boy was having “a bad day” and needed more time to think about his options. Looking around the courtroom, I could tell everyone was stifling a half-laugh.

If I’m not mistaken, when the kid entered the box he let out such a long, powerful sigh that even Chartier took notice of it. “Are we boring you?” he may have wondered to himself.

—

Shortly after this, an amazing thing happened. Another 17-year-old boy convicted of three assault charges, when asked by Chartier if he had anything to tell him before sentencing the youth, gave possibly the most eloquent address to that small, dank courtroom I’d imagine it’s ever heard. It was so riveting and honest that I’ll be posting the full text of it right here after I get to listen back to the court transcript on Monday. Stay posted. It’ll rock your socks.

I spoke briefly with the teen’s mother outside the courtroom. She didn’t have much else to add, but clearly looked proud of her son.

—

Now for a reality check: Tomorrow, there will be a version of a story in both daily Winnipeg newspapers about a 12-year-old girl that torched an East Kildonan home back in early May. I want to make it clear at the outset that despite her young age, this girl is already so damaged by the life she’s had that she needs help in probably the worst way possible. She’s an absolute mess for some very definite reasons.
You know there’s a serious problem when CFS social workers say there’s no safe place for a child to live. It’s difficult sometimes to report the facts of what was said and to keep one’s own feelings out of it. I’m going on record here and saying that no matter what horrible things this girl is done and no matter what shocking things she may have said, she’s 12 years old. She deserves each and every one of our best efforts to help her in any way we can.

—

About the bail hearing Thursday for the 16-year-old charged with aggravated assault and second-degree murder in the death of 30-year-old Paul Cherewick in mid-May. All I can really say is that the Judge reserved his decision due to the complexities of the case. A publication ban was asked for and granted to Crown attorney Raegan Rankin before telling the court about what evidence exists to implicate the young man on such grave charges. The ban, combined with the reserved decision means I can’t say much, if anything at all, about the case — yet — but I can assure you that when I can, I will. I’ll keep you posted.

As a side note - the case will be an awesome display of legal skills. Rankin, one of the finest Crowns in the province goes head-to-head with defense lawyer Darren Sawchuk who, even though I’ve only met him personally once, is a force to watch in the courtroom.

For those wondering about the need for publication bans on bail hearings - the logic is simple. A bail hearing is not a trial — but if opposed to release, the Crown must present evidence to the court to satisfy one of three grounds to continue keeping an accused in custody. Typically, bail hearings in complex cases are a preliminary pretrial step in what will be a very long systemic process — happening sometimes so quickly — that the prosecutor’s case is not 100 per cent set in stone at this point. For example, more evidence may be coming in the future to paint a clearer picture of the reasons to support a criminal charge.

The publication ban doesn’t extend to the Judge’s decision in the bail hearing, so that’s fair game. It’s perfectly fine to let the public know if an accused gets bail or not and on what conditions — the recent release of murder suspect Mark Stobbe is an example of what can be reported at this stage.

It’s the evidence that’s precious. Consider if a case is filled with eyewitnesses that the prosecutor is depending on to testify at a trial in the future. It comes out in a newspaper who these people are and what they’ve allegedly seen. Such disclosure may lead to the well-documented possibility of witness intimidation.

I suppose the most simple way of putting it is how a Crown attorney put it to me one day after court:

“My job is more important than your story,” she said - and she was being explanatory. I wasn’t bugging her for anything.

The issue I’d have with publication bans with respect to youth bails is that you can’t name the alleged offender, his or her family or anything at all that may lead the public to uncover the identity of a youth accused.
We all know that mistakes happen, however - the last thing any reporter wants is to trigger a mistrial and blow a case.

—

My masters have been lovingly holding on to a story about a teen girl implicated in a “dial a dealer” sting operation by police, which breaks down bit by bit how the sting operation is alleged to have unfolded after police got their hands on an alleged dealer’s cell number. When it finally hits the page, I’ll have more to share with you on it. It’s a fascinating tale.

—

I received a phone message today from a young woman who wanted to set the record straight about what she says really happened to a 16-year-old boy outside a Burrows Sobey’s store late last week. We’ve reported that he was allegedly punched by another 16-year-old in a fight over a girl, and the blow caused the youth to slam his head on the pavement — a blow that nearly killed him according to court records. The alleged attacker was charged with aggravated assault.

The young woman - who didn’t leave a name or a number so I could speak with her directly, said that the injured boy had been at the store with his girlfriend to get a job application. Another boy who likes the girl came along and allegedly hit him from behind for an undisclosed reason. They are not known to each other, the girl said in the message. Considering that the accused was granted bail this week and released with no-contact conditions that do not apply to the classroom, I’d surmise that while they may not be pals, they’ve laid eyes on each other.
As always, I’m interested to know what you think. Are you sick of hearing about what goes on in youth court? Do you want more “police” focused coverage? Is there a particular case I’ve covered here you wanted to know more about? Sound off in the comments and let me know.

Two eerily similar incidents, two very different outcomes, involving the same prosecutor using nearly the same argument.

Add one puzzled reporter and here we are.
I’m not sure what to make of what happened in youth court today. The nuts and bolts are like this:

A 17-year-old boy up on aggravated assault charges was granted bail and released on strict conditions. The incident he’s alleged to be involved in happened a year ago yesterday, on July 7, 2007.

At around 4 a.m. on the morning in question, a group of gang-members are hanging out at what was described as a “drinking party” on Beverley St. in the North End. A car, loaded with rival gang-bangers drives by and they yell insults at each other back and forth. The car screeches to a halt, and one guy runs out and angrily heads toward the group.

Soon after, the hunter becomes the hunted, and the guy’s set upon by as many as 6-8 boys and men, who beat him repeatedly until he suffers a brain bleed, a collapsed lung and has to be put on a ventilator after being taken to hospital. To add insult to the beating, his attackers are said to have thrown a bicycle on top of him, then stabbed him in the back three times.

A year later, he’s recovered, luckily. Police are called to clean up the mess and try and sort out who did what to whom. The evidence against the six people charged amounts to six video-taped statements made by witnesses who may or may not be credible ones - that remains to be seen at the trial.

The 17-year-old in question immediately goes on the lam to avoid capture. It wasn’t until nearly a year had passed that he voluntarily turns himself over to police last weekend (they allegedly said they were “too busy” to process him and made him come back the next day) and is sent to the MYC where he appeared for bail today.
Crown attorney Susan Baragar argued for the teen’s continued detention at the youth centre to await trial, and was denied. Her central argument: That public confidence in the justice system would be hampered if he was released, his alleged crime was so “horrific.” The teen is not alleged to have stabbed the victim, only participated in the beating.

Judge Michel Chartier disagreed with Baragar’s argument, saying although the incident was “serious and grave,” the teen could likely be trusted to behave himself given that he had not been caught re-offending, and had even successfully completed his probationary sentence from September 2005 after pleading guilty to assault with a weapon, an auto-theft related possession charge and two court-order breaches.

The argument - called the tertiary, or third and final grounds - on which bail can be denied under Canadian justice law, was only to be used in the most exceptional cases, Chartier suggested.

Rewind to two weeks ago, when Baragar was in a different courtroom, making much the same argument in asking the court to deny bail to a 15-year-old kid accused of participating in a savage gang-related beating of a 13-year-old boy and leaving him to die in a dumpster. His head was swollen to three times the size of a normal one. He was alleged to have been further beaten with a piece of door-frame while unconscious and inside the reeking AutoBin.
In that case, the charge: aggravated assault. Two others - both adult men - are also charged.

Also similarly, the teen’s defense lawyer alleged he only gave the 13-year-old “one cheap punch.”

In that case, Baragar’s contention was the same. To let the kid out is to harm the public’s confidence in the justice system.

What’s even more odd: the teen in question has no prior record, and was in town on a twice-yearly visit to Winnipeg from Garden Hill First Nation.
For whatever reason, Baragar’s argument stuck in this case, and the Judge denied him bail. He’ll stay locked up unless a guardian is willing to risk their neck and attempt what’s called a “responsible persons application” and take responsibility for his actions while waiting to answer to the charge. Few guardians do this, but in this case, it wouldn’t surprise me.

What does surprise me is that I can’t see what the tangible difference between the cases is, and why the outcomes are so different.
I guess it depends who you ask.

—————-

For those seeking confirmation that the ability of some young Winnipeggers to commit indiscriminate violence knows no bounds, I ask you to remember this story:

A man and two male youths have been arrested in connection with the beating and robbery of a 22-year-old man, police said today.
The Winnipeg Police Service said the man was approached by three males at about 7 a.m. Friday, while he was waiting at a bus stop in the 1000 block of Selkirk Avenue.
Police said he was stabbed in the upper body and assaulted in his head area. The trio fled the area after robbing the victim of money.
The victim was transported to hospital in critical condition, but was later upgraded to stable condition.
Members of the Major Crime Unit arrested two male youths and one adult male in connection to the incident.
They have been detained in custody.

You want to know what the assailants recieved from the victim for their (ahem)… “trouble?”

Ten bucks and a Nike headband.

I’m not joking.

An interesting situation came up in court today, raising some clear issues about the credibility of witnesses and testimony of victims of crime:
A 17-year-old boy was all set to be sentenced this morning for his role as a “lookout” in what sounded like a violent home invasion that took place back on Feb. 22. According to testimony given in court, the youth had fallen in with a pair of much older brothers (21 and 27) who are deeply connected to the city’s crack cocaine trade.

It came out that the home invasion was in some way or another linked to a drug deal that had gone bad in the past between the victims and the accused. The youth was called “a follower” that got caught in “the invisible net” of the law when he agreed to assist the brothers by standing watch over a home while they pushed their way into it and beat up a pregnant woman while a four-year-old child looked on.

Crown attorney Brian Sharpe and defense lawyer Jackson Mugerwa jointly recommended the youth receive a probationary sentence and have his 94 days in custody awaiting today’s hearing count on his record.

But Judge Michel Chartier took issue with the jointly-recommended penalty - and made the rare move of cutting the hearing off, asking that both crown and defense tell him more about the “exigent circumstances” of the incident, and prove why their sentence is the one he should agree to.
It turns out the victims in the case - a man and a woman - don’t have “entirely clean hands.” Chartier was told that the female victim had recently had bad dealings with one of the brothers accused in the case, and had tried to purchase crack at his home. When she had paid and he failed to produce the drugs, she began smashing up the place, ostensibly leading to the youth and the brothers to seek revenge for her actions at a later date.
The youth has prior convictions for assault and theft and a couple of court-order breaches dating back to December, 2006 - but it never became clear why it was that the judge wanted to hear more about the reasons for questioning the jointly recommended sentence.

All that was said is that there were “aggravating circumstances” in the case and that Sharpe and Mugerwa should prepare to offer him more by way of submissions and examples from case law to prove their recommended sentence was the right one.

The hearing will reconvene Friday morning.

—-

It’s not all gloomy in youth court, however:

At one point during this morning’s session, Mugerwa disappeared to consult with a client. The court proceedings halted for long period until Judge Chartier began wondering what had happened to the man.

Instead of leaving the back rooms of the MYC and coming around in court to request more time for consultation, he walked into the glassed-off prisoner’s box to address the court, which caused a guffaw to go up.
“Bail denied,” he quipped to the cramped courtroom, which erupted in laughter.

— A teenaged auto thief that made his imprint on Winnipeg motorists by stealing more than 100 Ford Windstars in the city between January and May - but only ones made in 1998.

— If you own a late model (1999 or earlier car) you are not any safer from having your vehicle stolen.
— Auto thieves “graduating” from the city’s auto theft strategy with a set of criminal, yet somehow “marketable” skills.

— Keen insight on Winnipeg’s small, yet still active “chop shop” organized car theft practices.

— A tenuous, yet engaging link between auto theft and al-Queda.

— Some young auto offenders being re-arrested by police as many as nine times since the end of 2004.

These are just a few of the salient points made by Det. Sgt Kevin Kavitch and Sgt. Doug Safioles of the Winnipeg Police stolen auto unit in a presentation given to members of city council today.

I’m offering the full audio recording of their talk today, including a short question and answer period between the officers and Couns. Gord Steeves (St. Vital), Jenny Gerbasi (Ft. Rouge-East Fort Garry), Mike Pagtakhan (Point Douglas) and Grant Nordman (St. Charles) following the talk, which was provided to them strictly for their illumination on Winnipeg’s stolen auto problems.

The good news: Unofficially, Winnipeg is nowhere near the “car theft capital of Canada” any longer, thanks to efforts made by Police, MPI and divisions of Manitoba Justice. We’re more like number four or five in the country, according to Kavitch.
The bad news: We’re just “lucky” there haven’t been more fatalities at the hands of teenaged car thieves, they present such a public safety risk.

I strongly suggest listening to the entire presentation if you want the comprehensive scoop of the problems and solutions as presented by the two officers today. While the Free Press strongly believes it’s an important issue, and we’ve led the agenda by presenting multiple angles on one of the city’s most pressing and enduring problems, readers of this blog may find hearing about it straight from the horse’s mouth more comprehensive than space often allows in the paper.

‘Nuff said - but I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Time permitting, I’ll even forward your questions and comments on to the police in hopes that they would open a dialogue through this humble blog with you.

The presentation’s in two parts, each about 20 minutes. click Stolen Auto part 1 for the first half and Stolen Auto part 2 for the second. My trusty recorder needed a new battery part-way through, so there’s about a 30 second gap in the middle.

Requires QuickTime.

Happy listening. It’s well worth your time if you have an interest in crime.

I’ve been waiting to write this post based on the one directly below it where Judge Rocky Pollack delayed his sentencing of a young girl saying he wanted to carefully choose his words when deciding her fate.

Today was the day that Pollack announced his verdict, and he didn’t mince words when it came to giving the 12-year-old “strongarm” robber the inside and insightful track about his role within the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The short version is that the girl was given a six-month deferred custody sentence, meaning she’s back on the streets today, but if she screws up even once, she’ll get hauled back into custody and spend the rest of the time locked up at the youth centre with no chance of bail until the time is served. It’s a last-ditch punishment option for judges in many borderline custody cases.
Adding much depth to the story, however, was Pollack’s prolonged preamble about the YCJA before pronouncing his sentence - and those who bash judges for handing out so-called ‘lightweight’ sentences to young offenders should pay close attention to what he had to say.
In describing his responsibility to the girl under the framework of the Act, he described it as being “the most systematic attempt in Canadian history” to structure how a judge or justice can legally punish a young offender.

Pollack used an odd, but fitting analogy to the limits of his sentencing powers, saying “the parking lot outside isn’t as regulated as my conduct in sentencing youth cases.” And he’s right. The multitude of sections under the YCJA basically circumscribes and limits a judge’s powers within so far as he or she can provide “just sanctions” leading to “meaningful consequences” for a youth with the aim of rehabilitating and reintegrating them in a way that has a prolonged effect on guarding the safety of the general public.

In many, if not most cases, jail time isn’t an option.
The judge, who was appointed in December 2006 after 30 years of practice as a lawyer, even went so far as to say since the YCJA came into effect that fateful April Fool’s Day in 2003, judges have had to be “reprogrammed to accommodate the sentencing structure” of the much-maligned Act.

The 12-year-old, if you remember, has been involved in three robberies - one involving a knife - in recent months. Each involved her hanging with a gang of some sort, initially all girls, but later including boys as well.

After spending two days in custody following her arrest, the teen was released and then bolted two weeks later. She was brought back to the MYC and released again.

The first incident she was involved in was the epitome of cowardice - she and three other girls plotted to steal the purse from a young woman on Victor Street. They snuck up behind her (Pollack sarcastically said ’snuck up bravely’) and began kicking and punching the woman repeatedly until she gave up her purse. She did, and they ran off with it, but the woman chased them down to an Agnes Street apartment block in an attempt to get it back.

In doing so, the woman only raised the gang’s ire further, and they again fell to beating her until a passing motorist intervened and put a stop to it.

The other “planned and deliberate” robberies -two on the same day in April - were in a similar vein except that this time, the young girl was arrested carrying a knife which was not used by her in committing the crimes.

A court report shows no presence of addictions or mental health issues in the girl’s history, leading Pollack to say “since there isn’t something like that to be treated somehow, then custody must be the only option for you.”

She’s completely unafraid -as prosecutors hoped she wouldn’t be - of the machinations of the justice system.

Being arrested, sent to jail and going before the court doesn’t seem to jangle her at all. Surrounded by her hard-of-hearing grandmother, her tired-looking dad, sisters (one who ate candy all the way through the hearing) and a cousin in court today, the slight-framed, bright-eyed girl sat staring blandly out of the prisoner’s box, betraying no emotion as Pollack recounted the facts now forever printed on her criminal record.

In weighing the girl’s potential to spend more time locked up, Pollack indicated he was scared to NOT sentence her to more time, saying to her face: “If I don’t do it now, your situation may be a hopeless case….keeping you from the youth centre will somehow be inadequate,” he said.

But, to reiterate, he chose to give the girl one final chance to try and straighten out in the public, and she’ll have some strict conditions to adhere to as well.

In prescribing the usual “cure” of conditions that many kids get -to keep the peace, reside where directed, stay away from substances and not to possess weapons - Pollack added one condition of his own creation that may have more impact on the girl than any of the others combined.

It turns out the first person the girl robbed is a devout Christian, a believing woman who wished to meet her and tell her she was forgiven for what she did.

By August 31 of this year, the girl - in the company of her probation officer - is forced to meet with her victim face to face to discuss what happened that horrible night.
Here’s hoping that meeting sparks something in the girl that reminds her that crime isn’t victimless - that in the end, it’s the criminal who becomes the victim of their actions, too.