Clauses 20 and 24 of the bill amend the rules on lifting publication bans set out in section 75 of the YCJA. It is proposed that the court, where it imposes a specific sentence on a youth convicted of a violent offence, determine whether a publication ban, particularly a ban on identifying the victim, should be lifted. The bill further states that the principles set out in sections 3 and 38 of the Act, as amended, must be considered. We reiterate that deterrence and denunciation are among the additions proposed in the bill.
The Barreau du Québec disagrees with this change, which targets many situations brought before the court because of the new definition of violent offence. Further, the publication of information that could identify the youth and the nature of the measures imposed will stigmatize the young person, and that could hurt their chances of being rehabilitated and returning to society. We question the usefulness of treating young people 14 to 18 years of age whom the court determines to be proper candidates for the youth criminal justice system in the same way as adults, in terms of publication of their identity, based solely on the nature of offence (ranging in this case from murder to uttering threats). Should we not instead fear the ripple effect among young people seeking attention?
The legislative amendments also introduce the notion of "significant risk", of which the court must be satisfied. The Barreau du Québec is of the opinion that a definition of "significant risk" would be appropriate. Finally, the Barreau contends that the standard of proof required for an order lifting a publication ban must be the standard applied in sentencing (beyond all reasonable doubt), since it the issue of publication is tied to it. We hope that these comments will be useful.