Province’s top court slams justice system for keeping criminal’s case in limbo

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/06/2017 (2500 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The justice system has an “insatiable appetite” for delays, Manitoba’s highest court said in a ruling on a case that took two years — and 31 court appearances — to sentence a Winnipeg teen who had pleaded guilty to armed robbery.

In a 74-page decision released Wednesday, the Court of Appeal imposed a longer sentence on 17-year-old Jared Madison Okemow, who was previously sentenced as an adult for two armed robberies he committed three years ago, saying it was too lenient, and called out systemic delays in the justice system.

“The contemporary Canadian criminal justice system has a seemingly insatiable appetite for adjournments,” the court’s decison states, condemning the practice of keeping a criminal case in limbo by simply re-scheduling court dates.

Okemow’s case had 31 court appearances over the course of two years and was “anything but timely,” the appeal court decided.

After he spent two years in pre-trial custody, the teen was given a three-year sentence with credit for 29 months, so he had only seven months left in jail at a youth facility as of last June. Not only did it take far too long for the case to wrap up, the appeal court ruled, but the sentencing judge erred by putting too much weight on the teen’s fetal-alcohol-related diagnosis when she crafted the sentence.

The teen had Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND), but that didn’t necessarily mean he had “diminished moral culpability” when he orchestrated two armed robberies when he was 14, the appeal court decided. A university student suffered a stab wound and a broken nose during one of the robberies, a group street mugging that Okemow led, court heard. It was also his idea to rob a convenience store while armed with a knife about three days prior, causing a store clerk to urinate himself in fear.

In a decison written by Justice Christopher Mainella, the appeal court decided to increase the teen’s sentence for “denunciation and fair and proportionate accountability” because of the “adult-like maturity” he displayed when he committed the two armed robberies in June 2014. A probation officer had described Okemow as “a very street-wise young man.”

“In each case, the victims were vulnerable, defenceless and outnumbered. Significant violence was either threatened or used by the young person,” Mainella wrote.

The teen has been ordered to serve an additional 12 months behind bars as a result of the appeal court’s decision and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He’s considered a fugitive because he didn’t show up for his appeal hearing in March and hasn’t reported for his probation.

The case also brings to light “an unsatisfactory state of affairs” regarding continued delays in the youth criminal justice system, the decision noted. The panel of judges condemned “significant” delays in this case, some of which were caused by the youth court judge.

On June 30, 2014, the day after the second armed robbery, Okemow had his first court appearance. By Aug. 20 that year, he’d pleaded guilty to all 14 of the criminal charges he faced. Despite that relatively prompt guilty plea, almost two years would pass before the teen was sentenced as an adult on June 28, 2016. The judge had expected to give her decision in January 2016, but delayed it even further to wait for the appeal court to release its decision in another case.

“Sentencing courts are not expected to delay their work for an extended period on the off-chance that a pending appellate (court) decision might be of assistance to them,” the appeal court’s decision states.

The youth court judge had previously granted an adjournment at the defence’s request, allowing for the court process to be delayed while they waited on an additional psychological assessment that turned out to be “repetitive and unnecessary,” for the sentencing and violated a requirement in the Youth Criminal Justice Act for all assessments to be completed within 30 days for a youth in custody unless there has been a court-ordered extension.

The ruling cautions Manitoba judges not to rely too heavily on “expert” opinion before imposing their decisions.

Expert evidence “provides context but not the answer to a legal dispute,” the decision states.

katie.may@freepress.mb.ca

Twitter: @thatkatiemay