Home > Côtécour > Court of Quebec - Youth Division - Youth Court

Côtécour

Court of Quebec - Youth Division - Youth Court

The Youth Division of the Court of Quebec, as its name indicates, is responsible for all legal questions related to young people.

The Youth Division deals with criminal justice cases involving youth. When dealing with these matters, it is called the Youth Court. This court applies the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Any young person between 12 and 18 years old accused of committing an offence or violating a penal law may have to appear before the Youth Court for her trial. In this section, Éducaloi offers an explanation of what happens in this court. To gain a deeper understanding of some concepts, we invite the reader to consult Jeune pour jeunes.

A significant number of cases brought before the Youth Division also involve the safety and development of children between the ages of 0 and 18; these are known as youth protection cases. For example, when a child isn't receiving appropriate care because of his parents' lifestyle or behaviour, if he is physically or psychologically abused, or if he is a danger to himself, a judge at the Court of Quebec decides on the measures needed to address the situation. The court works together with the Director of Youth Protection.

Finally, the judge sitting in the Youth Division hears all cases related to adoption. He is the one who makes placement or adoption orders, for example.

Judicial characters and concept

Judge

I am a judge in the Youth Division of the Court of Quebec. Before my appointment, I practiced law for several years. The experience that I acquired as a lawyer helps me enormously in my role as a judge. To become a judge, I applied to a selection committee. After that, I had an interview in which I was asked many questions, not just about my legal knowledge and professional competence but also about my values, personal experiences, community involvement, etc. And here we are now: it will soon be 11 years since I became a judge at the Court of Quebec.

My work as a judge in the Youth Division is varied. When I sit in the court, I hear cases dealing with adolescents accused of committing offences and cases of youth protection or adoption. When I’m not sitting at a trial, I sometimes go to meet young people at their schools. I talk to them about my work, about justice, and about their rights and responsibilities. At the Youth Division, education is very important, both inside and outside the courtroom. Let me tell you a bit more about my work with teens.

When a youth commits an offence under the Criminal Code or penal law, the Crown prosecutor (after a police investigation) may decide to press charges against him. This is when I step in because the trial must take place in the Youth Division of the Court of Quebec. When I preside over a trial of this kind, I act like an arbitrator and I must listen carefully to the testimony and the lawyers’ arguments. Also, I have to ensure that the trial unfolds in an orderly fashion and that the established rules are respected. I decide whether to accept or reject any objections raised by the lawyers and I make sure that the rights of the accused are respected. In short, my role is similar to that of a judge in adult court.

In Youth Court, things happen very quickly. Because of the complexity and urgency of some situations, the people who appear before me don’t have several months to wait before obtaining a decision. Most of the time, my verdict is therefore rendered from the bench, which means that I give the decision immediately after listening to the testimony and arguments of the lawyers for both parties.

When it comes to sentencing, I always try to find a balance between protecting society and the need to encourage the adolescent before me to develop a sense of responsibility for his actions. To do this, I have several options available to me, from a simple reprimand to community service while under guard in a youth center. At Youth Court, the measures available to help youth gain a feeling of responsibility are diverse and better adapted to the needs of the accused than those in adult court.

My work is stimulating and highly demanding, but it also includes its share of difficulties. Every day, families come before me in crisis: young people without parents or homes, with behavioural problems, difficulties with violence, alcoholism, and addiction. For the most part, they are not criminals. They are children who desperately want to be heard, understood, and loved. The Youth Division can be compared to an emergency room, since we manage risks and we deal with human suffering. Over the years, I have learned not to judge the people, but rather the situations, that are before me.

Court usher

I am the most senior court usher at the courthouse. Twenty-four years of service! People often ask me exactly what I do at the court. So here you have it – a little overview of my role during a hearing.

The word “usher” was originally used to describe a servant who was in charge of allowing people to pass through a door. But I’m not just a doorman! One of my responsibilities is to make sure that the courtroom is ready for the hearing. For example, I have to make sure that the judge, the lawyers, and the parties have water available to them during the proceedings. If the court file is large, I am the one who transports it from the judge’s chambers to the courtroom. In some important cases, I have seen files that filled many boxes. I also make sure that any law books the judge will need are handy.

Once the room is ready, all we need are the lawyers, the parties, and the judge. It’s up to me to coordinate everybody, as the judge only makes his appearance once everyone else is present and ready for the trial to begin. When it’s time to begin the proceedings, I have to go find the lawyers if they are not already in the room. Generally, they’re not too far away, waiting either in the hallway or in one of the nearby conference rooms.

The hearing usually starts on time, however, the judge may delay it to allow the parties time to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. In such a case, I act as the messenger and let the judge know how the negotiations are going. If the parties come to an agreement, everyone will meet in the courtroom, where the judge will ratify the settlement by pronouncing a judgment that is in line with it. On the other hand, if no settlement is reached, the trial goes ahead as planned.

I make sure that decorum is respected in court. When the judge enters, I ask everyone to stay quiet; once the judge sits down, I pronounce the famous line, “Court is now in session.” I then invite everyone to take their seats. During the trial, I often have to spend long hours seated and motionless. I spend my time listening to the testimony and to the lawyers’ arguments, while keeping an eye out for situations that may require my services. I might be called on to photocopy documents, to meet witnesses waiting in the corridor, or, in hearings that are closed to the public, to ask people other than the parties or lawyers to leave the courtroom.

In my work, it is important that I exercise a great deal of discretion (the same goes for lawyers and judges). If I am ever assigned to a case that involves people I know personally, I ask another court usher to replace me. I am well aware that it’s difficult and intimidating enough to find yourself in court, never mind having to tell your story in front of an acquaintance.

Having attended so many trials during my career, I have picked up a lot about the law, but I have also learned about people’s lives and about human nature, in general. In the first few months of my work, I remember being quite affected by a woman's account of how her child died. I have listened to many sad stories and I have also seen some pretty crazy situations.

So there you have it, that’s my role in court. The court usher is in some ways the person who makes the whole process work. I discreetly make sure everything is in order so as to make life easier for the judge, lawyers, witnesses, and parties.

Court clerk

They also call me the clerk or the legal secretary. Someone once asked me the origin of the word “clerk.” I told him that it was derived from the word “cleric”. During medieval times, the clergy were among the few who could read and write, and so were often employed to do bookkeeping and other similar work. Does this give you a hint about my job?

I work alongside the judge. I was her secretary when she was a lawyer and I followed her here when she was appointed. Part of my work involves writing her correspondence, typing her judgments, taking her phone calls, and organizing her schedule – in short, all the tasks that are assigned to a judge’s secretary. My training as a legal secretary helps a lot for this aspect of my job. The rest, really the essence of my role as a court clerk, I had to learn on the job.

It is not exaggerating to say that my role as court clerk is indispensable during the trial. I am the one who takes notes for the judge so that she can devote all of her attention to the lawyers and witnesses. Even if I usually work for her, I am occasionally assigned to other judges. Today, for instance, I am the court clerk in a case presided over by another judge, who, while extremely polite, is very fussy about courtroom decorum. He also speaks very quickly when rendering decisions during the trial, to the point where I have had to ask him to slow down, as I am sometimes unable to keep up when taking my notes. Like most court clerks, I wish I could remember my shorthand. But it’s not the end of the world, as I can always use the tape recording of the hearing to listen to what the judge said a second time.

A typical day as a court clerk begins with administrative tasks. Following that, I make my way to the courtroom with the file for the case that will be heard. When there are many cases scheduled for the same day, I post a list at the entrance of the courtroom or I send a copy to the lawyers to let them know the order in which the cases will be heard. When the judge arrives, I ask by telephone that the audio recording be started. Then I formally open the proceedings by stating the number of the case, the names of the parties, and by asking the lawyers to identify themselves.

Once the hearing begins, I try to be as discreet as possible for the benefit of the lawyers, their witnesses, and the judge. I may look like I’m twiddling my thumbs, but don’t be fooled: I am listening attentively to everything that is being said in order to record the minutes of the hearing. Sometimes I interact with the witnesses and lawyers; this is the part of my job that I enjoy the most. At the request of the lawyers, I call the witnesses to the stand and have them sworn in. I am also the one who collects the documents and exhibits of evidence submitted to the court record by the lawyers. I write a reference number on each of these, which I record in the minutes of the hearing, and I later hand them over to the judge. One of the strangest items I have ever received was a half-burned fire log submitted as evidence in a sexual assault case.

The minutes of the hearing, which I keep mentioning, are a series of forms that I could probably fill in with my eyes closed because I know them so well. I take note of the principal phases of the trial, such as the examinations and cross-examinations, the names of the witnesses, and the arguments of each lawyer. I also record each motion submitted to the judge and each objection raised by the lawyers, as well as the decision rendered by the judge. These minutes form a kind of roadmap of the trial. They make it easier to find particular parts of the trial on the audio tape recording, as the name of every speaker and the exact time at which he or she began speaking are recorded.

I have been doing this fascinating job for 10 years. During this time, I have seen all kinds of trials. Fraud cases, divorce hearings, disputes between multinational corporations - believe me, I’ve seen it all! So there you have it: that is what I do as a court clerk. It is definitely a job that requires a great deal of precision and attention to detail.

Crown prosecutor

I am also called the prosecuting attorney or the Attorney General’s prosecutor. My role is to represent the state in prosecuting youth who, on the basis of a police investigation, are believed to have committed a criminal offence. Well, that’s my official role, anyway. I sometimes have the impression that besides being a lawyer, I am also a social worker! I’m not complaining, though; on the contrary, the social dimension of my work is something that fascinates and motivates me.

Like any other Quebec lawyer, I have a law degree and I completed my professional training at the École du Barreau du Québec. I was a Crown prosecutor on the adult side for a few years before being assigned to youth cases. Now I deal almost exclusively with files heard before the Youth Division.

Throughout a case, I must make many decisions that have a great impact on the life of the young person in question. For example, I have to consider if he should be allowed to go free during the proceedings, if extrajudicial measures or sanctions should be suggested for him, and if he should receive an adult sentence if convicted. Of course, legislation and previous cases offer many rules to guide me in my decisions, but there is never a magic recipe. Each file raises new questions and must be considered on its own.

I always have to keep in mind that my principal role is to ensure the protection of the public. When I have reason to believe that an adolescent will commit other crimes, I ask the judge to keep him in custody for the duration of the proceedings. The adolescent's lawyer takes care of his client and I take care of society and the victim. But my job doesn’t end there. One of the particularities of our youth justice system is that it considers the needs of each young person. Therefore, while I always have the protection of society in mind, I can never lose sight of the fact that all my decisions must also be made in light of the psychosocial needs of the adolescent.

My double obligation to protect society and help in the rehabilitation of the young person can make things tricky when the time comes to make suggestions to the judge about possible sentencing. The judge is the one who decides on the sentence in the end, but as lawyers, we suggest what we consider to be the most appropriate outcome. As you can imagine, the interests of society, the adolescent, and the victim often conflict.

Let me give you an example. Take the case of an adolescent accused of committing assault with a weapon. Let's say that this is not her first offence and that she knows so much about the justice system from personal experience that she could be a lawyer herself! Although her parents are around, they can’t control her comings and goings or her choice of friends. On the other hand, the youth has stayed out of trouble for the last few months. Her pre-sentencing (or psychosocial) report is generally positive and mentions that she has found a job as a mechanic, which she loves. She is even thinking of taking a mechanics course in Cegep. Her criminal history might justify a strict sentence, but the pre-sentencing report makes me think she might be on the right path. So do I ask for her to go free with probation conditions or do I try to have her sent to a rehabilitation center?

Unfortunately, I don’t have a crystal ball. Sometimes I trust an adolescent and I turn out to be wrong. If she reoffends and commits another crime, I regret believing her and suggesting a lenient sentence. It makes me sad to know that someone else was the victim of this adolescent’s behaviour. I know very well that I did my best in light of my knowledge and that it is not my fault, but it sometimes leads me to question myself.

The Accused

I'm under 18 years old and I've been accused of robbing a classmate. Truth is that I wasn't the one who hit Louis and stole his leather jacket. Louis says that I blocked his path so that he couldn’t get away, but that’s not how it happened at all! He’s definitely confused me with someone else. I didn't do anything wrong, I didn’t even touch him! I just happened to be there. This is the first time that I’ve been to the Youth Division of the Court of Quebec and I have to admit that I’m pretty nervous. I hope that I don’t wind up in too much trouble.

My trial begins today. My parents are here - they've been supporting me throughout this whole drama. It’s actually been several months since my arrest, and I have had to go through a lot of different steps in the legal process to get to my trial. Even though I am presumed innocent, it's been really stressful facing these criminal charges. I even spent several days in detention after my arrest. The police and the Crown prosecutor were worried the victim would be in danger if I were released. Despite this, the judge agreed to free me under very strict conditions while I waited for my trial date. Even though I was free, the wait was hard to endure.

The reason why I am in this situation is simple: I was accused of committing a robbery. At this stage I am only the accused and as long as I am not found guilty, I am still presumed innocent of the crime alleged against me. This fundamental principle of Canadian law means that I won’t have to prove my innocence during the trial. Rather, it will be up to the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I am guilty. This way, if the judge has any doubt about my guilt, he will have to acquit me.

Being accused of a crime can carry with it many very serious consequences. This is why, in addition to the presumption of innocence, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees several rights to protect me, just as it does adults. One of the most important of these is the right to make full answer and defence. I can demand to have the help of a lawyer in making this defence. I am not an expert in law, and pleading my case on my own could be very complex and risky, so it is makes sense to have an expert in the field come to help and advise me. This right also means that the prosecution must disclose all the evidence it has against me, even that which it doesn’t plan to present at trial, so that I can adequately defend myself. There is no possibility of surprise witnesses suddenly appearing. In addition, if the prosecution tries to present evidence that I didn’t know about, it can be rejected by the judge.

If, at the end of the trial, the judge finds me guilty, he will sentence me. The first goal of any sentence is to make me take responsibility for the offence I was convicted of committing. The judge has a great deal of discretion: he can impose all kinds of measures, like a fine, community work, probation… He can even place me in custody in a youth centre in certain circumstances. He will base his decision on several factors, including the gravity of the crime, my prior record, my attitude toward the offence and my family situation.

Being accused in Youth Court is far from a pleasant experience. But I have to admit that everyone around me – the judge, the lawyers and the youth delegate – seems to have the same goal in mind: getting me onto the right path. If they give me a chance, I won’t mess it up. At first, I thought that this was all a big joke; I have to say that it isn’t funny anymore.

Investigator

I am the right-hand man of the Crown prosecutor in a criminal proceeding. While people associate me with being at her side in the courtroom, my work starts long before a file even makes it to the court.

I come on the scene the moment a crime has been committed. I am the police officer in charge of running the investigation aimed at gathering evidence in order to find the person or people guilty of the crime. In the course of this investigation, I meet potential witnesses and take down their statements. I also verify the existence of all other important evidence, like video tapes or photographs. A criminal investigation is not a easy thing to lead; I am assisted by a team of police officers. When I believe I have gathered enough evidence to identify and prosecute a suspect at trial, I am ready to submit the file to a Crown prosecutor.

It is the Crown prosecutor who decides the charges that will be made against the suspect, not me. All the same, since I know all the evidence, I often make recommendations to her. To help the prosecutor in this task, I put together a file in which she can easily find all the information related to the case. I also provide a summary of the facts, a list of witnesses, their statements, as well as any other relevant document. In light of this information, the prosecutor makes her decision.

I also help the Crown prosecutor prepare for the trial, especially when the file is complex, where the evidence can be extensive. I help her analyse and understand the evidence available to her. If she has questions or needs supplementary evidence, I am the one she asks.

I also play an important role with the prosecution’s witnesses. Often the Crown prosecutor asks me to be present at meetings with the witnesses and I have to pay special attention to some of them. I once had to reassure a victim of sexual assault who was particularly afraid of her aggressor. During the entire trial, I stayed at her side to keep the accused from trying to communicate with her.

During the trial, the Crown prosecutor often requires my services. For example, I can ensure that all of the witnesses are present and that they are prepared to testify by having them re-read their statements. I often have to testify in the case, as well. During the whole trial, I am at the disposal of the Crown prosecutor in order to answer her questions and help her if needed. This is why you always see me seated beside her.

Everyone is well aware of the aspect of my work that involves leading an investigation to catch the person who committed a crime. But few people know that my work as an investigator doesn’t end with the arrest of the suspect. The Crown prosecutor and I form a team, with the lone goal of uncovering the truth so that justice served.

Witness

I AM A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION…

…because I know about a fact that could help the judge know what actually happened. One night, I saw someone enter through the window of an electronics store and come out with several boxes. The Crown prosecutor asked me to come and testify. He read the statement that I made to the police and decided that my testimony would be very useful to his case. The prosecutor even told me I would be his most important witness because I was the only person who could correctly identify the accused. In this case, my role was more essential even than that of the victim, the store owner, because he wasn’t there at the time of the theft. When my turn came to testify, I answered the Crown prosecutor’s questions as well as I could. Afterward, the lawyer for the accused had the chance to ask me questions in his cross-examination. This wasn’t an easy experience because he tried to discredit me by looking for contradictions in my testimony. Still, I didn’t let myself get distracted and I kept to my version of the facts, telling nothing but the truth.

I AM THE VICTIM…

…because I had the misfortune of being the target of a criminal act. I was sexually assaulted by someone I knew. I made a complaint to the police and he was eventually accused of sexual assault. I was one of the witnesses for the prosecution because my testimony could help convict the accused. When I testified at the trial, the Crown prosecutor invited me explain what happened to me. Telling my “story” in public was really difficult. But I didn’t want this to happen to another woman, so I found the courage to come and testify. The defence lawyer asked several questions to try to prove to the court that it was possible that I had invented the whole story…but it didn’t work! The accused was found guilty. At first, I wasn’t sure about testifying, but now I think that I did what anybody would have done in my place.

I AM THE EXPERT WITNESS…

…and I was called before the court to give my opinion on a subject that requires particular knowledge and experience. I am a specialist in fingerprint identification. Unlike other witnesses at the trial who can only come and report the facts as they witnessed them, we expert witnesses can give our opinion on various elements of the case. In my career, I have been a witness in several trials, as many times for the Crown as for the defence. Recently, I had to give my opinion in a murder case where other expert witnesses were heard: a forensic scientist, a psychologist and a chemist. Our testimony allowed the jury to better understand different elements related to the victim, the crime scene and the personality of the accused. For my part, my expertise in fingerprints allowed me to determine that it was really the accused who entered the victim’s home on the night of the murder.

I AM A DEFENCE WITNESS…

…because I knew about a fact that could help the judge learn the truth. It was the defence lawyer who summoned me to the Court. He sent me a “subpoena” so that I would testify to support the alibi defence of his client. I explained to the judge that at the time that it was committed, the accused was peacefully playing cards with me, so it would have been impossible for him to have commited the crime alleged against him. Since there was an error about the person involved, my testimony made it possible to prevent a serious injustice from being committed: I kept an innocent person from being convicted.

Now each of us has told you about our experiences as witnesses. Even if our roles differ, our testimony in each case is an important piece of evidence that could help bring out the truth and allow justice to be served.

Public

It makes sense to allow everyone (including me) to attend jury trials involving adolescents, so we can learn about how justice deals with youth. The right to a public trial is a constitutional guarantee provided in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I cannot observe Youth Protection cases, because they are always held in camera (in private).
It is appropriate that every citizen has the right to be present at trials involving youths so that they can learn about how the justice system deals with those accused of being young offenders. The right to a public trial is a constitutional guarantee by virtue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For this reason, I can attend hearings, but I must respect decorum. The moment the judge enters the room, I have to stand and stay standing until she sits down. Afterward, I must remain silent; I can’t express my approval or disapproval of the way the trial is going. This is important in ensuring that justice is done in an atmosphere of calm and impartiality. When the judge leaves the courtroom, I stand again and wait for her to leave before moving from my place.

Journalists may also attend trials in the part of the room reserved to the public. Their role is to report on what is said in court, unless the judge has ordered a publication ban. In addition, if the youth or his lawyer requests it from the judge, the media may be banned from releasing the evidence presented at the bail hearing before the trial begins, and that provided at the preliminary hearing. The media is forbidden from publishing this information in order to prevent the public from forming an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused based on incomplete information. However, these barriers no longer apply as soon as the trial ends. All that being said, journalists may never divulge the identity of an accused youth, nor any information that could be used to identify him.

It is also possible for a judge to forbid journalists from attending a hearing. In order to do this, one of the two parties of the case must prove that the presence of journalists would harm a person involved in the case. But this happens in exceptional circumstances in which the evidence must be very convincing.

There is another important restriction on the work of journalists: the rule of sub judice. Under this rule, the media must exercise restraint when reporting on a case that is presently before the courts. They break this rule if they take a side, make judgments about how the trial is being conducted or how the court has decided an issue, or pronounce on the quality of the evidence presented. Journalists cannot take the place of the judge; their role is limited to reporting the facts. However, once the judgment is rendered, they can express themselves freely.

Finally, journalists cannot film whenever and wherever they want to at the courthouse; they are limited to authorized areas.

This summarizes the role of journalists when it comes to trials involving youths. It’s an essential role for people who are unable to attend courtrooms themselves, but want to be informed about important trials in their community.

The public aspect of our justice system is of fundamental importance. The fact that we may be present in the courtrooms to watch the proceedings unfold assures us that the rule of law is being correctly applied and that justice is being done.

Recording

Every courtroom is linked to the courthouse’s central audio recording system, which consists of a network of microphones, tape recorders and speakers. The role of this system is to make recordings of each hearing, which are then available to judges, lawyers, journalists and the public. To do this, two independent systems are used at the same time – one makes a recording of each individual hearing, and the other makes a master recording.

The individual recording system is made up of a series of tape recorders, each of which is linked to a single courtroom. The court recorder starts the individual tape at the moment when the clerk of the court telephones him to say that the hearing is beginning. He stops the recording when the clerk lets him know there is a break in the hearing or that it has ended.

The master recording is a backup copy in case the individual system doesn’t work properly. The sound quality of this system is not as good as the individual system, but it allows the recording of sound in 20 courtrooms at once. It starts in the morning as soon as the courthouse opens, and doesn’t stop until the last hearing of the day ends.

Because the master system is constantly recording, private conversations, such as those between lawyers and their clients, may be picked up on it. For this reason, no one may listen to the master recording without the permission of the Chief Justice of the Court. This prohibition even applies to the court recorders.

Let’s come back to the individual recording system and how it can be used. Using the speakers in the courtroom, the judge and the people in the room can hear what had been said earlier in the proceedings, if needed. This can be useful when a witness says something and denies saying it a moment later. The clerk can rewind the tape to the right place at the request of the judge. Then, the court recorder plays the tape recording on the speakers.

In addition, the tapes are available at a certain cost to anyone who is interested. For example, sometimes journalists come to listen to a trial that they couldn’t attend in person. They can then report what happened, but they are not allowed to broadcast audio clips from the tapes. That being said, the public doesn’t have access to recordings of cases that happen in closed hearings, like those of the Family Division of the Superior Court, or those of the Court of Québec, Youth Division – Youth Protection.

To use this service, all that is necessary is to give the date of the trial, the room number and the file number to the attendant responsible for the recordings at the courthouse. It is even possible to ask to hear exactly what was said at a specific time because there is a track that records the time on the tape.

It is also possible to obtain a written version of the recording. This is called a transcript. The tape is sent to an official stenographer who types out what is heard on the tape. This rather costly service can be useful when a person is involved in several legal proceedings related to the same events. For example, a person may be sued over a contract both in Small Claims Court and before a criminal court. During the criminal trial the person might say that the cat was red. In the Small Claims documents she said that the cat was blue. It could be useful to show the judge there are two versions of the story, in order call this person’s credibility into question.

If the recording system didn’t exist at the courthouse, the lawyers would have no choice but to hire an official stenographer to ensure that everything said during the trial was properly recorded. In fact, this was the method used in the past, before someone had the brilliant idea to install a tape recording system

Oath

When a person takes God as a witness that she is telling the truth in stating a fact or that she will fulfill a contractual promise, we call this an oath. In court, the oath takes the following form: “Put your right hand on the Bible. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Say ‘I swear’.” The clerk of the court delivers these three little lines to every witness called during a criminal trial. Instead of swearing on the Bible, a witness may also ask to make a solemn affirmation. The clerk of the court will then ask the following question: “Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” If the witness doesn’t belong to a Judeo-Christian religion, she can take the oath according to her own religious convictions. Once the witness is sworn in, the clerk of the court asks her to state her name, birthdate, and occupation and then records this information in the minutes of the hearing. Since the 1st of January, 1994, only the solemn affirmation is permitted before civil courts of Québec; other kinds of oath are no longer recognized.

The judge cannot hear a witness who has not first been sworn in except in special cases, such as when the witness is a young child. A judge can authorize the testimony of a young child who doesn’t understand the nature of the oath but has the ability to explain facts. The judge has the child promise to tell the truth. Often, to make sure the youngster understands the promise and has the capacity to explain the facts, the judge has an informal conversation with him in his office, only in the presence of the lawyers. The judge wears no robe and does everything possible to make the child feel comfortable at this point.

The promise to tell the truth, in the case of young children, and the oath, for ordinary witnesses, encourage people to testify honestly. Most take this very seriously. Among the Ancients, the oath ordinarily included the administration of curses, by which the person who took the oath called the wrath of the heavens upon himself in case of perjury. Dealt with more modestly today, false testimony is an offence that may result in a fine or a stay in prison. But it is still an imperfect method of ensuring that the truth comes out. The lawyers and the judge pay close attention during the entire trial so as to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. The judge takes this into account in his decision, especially when several witnesses contradict each other.

Defence lawyer

As my name indicates, I am the one who defends the interests and rights of an adolescent facing criminal charges. There is probably no experience more traumatizing for an adolescent than to have to go through all of the stages of a criminal prosecution. Police investigation, arrest, appearance, trial – too often this process sparks self-doubt and a sense of powerlessness in the person who experiences it. It is moments like these that I step in to advise and guide an adolescent accused before the court.

Often people believe, incorrectly, that my role amounts to defending an adolescent during his trial at the Youth Court. In fact, it is a much wider role than that and begins well before the trial.

Usually I come on the scene at a very important and often frightening moment for the adolescent: the arrest. Any person apprehended by the police must be informed right away about the reasons for the arrest, and about his or her right to talk to a lawyer. This principle applies as much to adults as to youth. “What do I do? What do I say? What is going to happen to me?” These are the questions that a young person asks himself when he is brought to the police station. My role is to answer these questions and also to try to reassure the adolescent.

I inform him about his right to remain silent and advise him about how to act in the phases to follow. Since the police can arrest an adolescent at any time of day or night, I can be reached 24 hours a day. This makes for some pretty late nights…

During the trial, my role is different from that of the Crown prosecutor, who has no case to win and whose goal is to present all the evidence proving the guilt of the accused to the judge. I try to get my client acquitted. I attempt to do this using all the legal means at my disposal.

I am often asked if I ever defend an adolescent when I have doubts about his innocence. This situation only happens rarely. First of all, I cannot help a person to lie before the court or lead the court into error. Also, what counts is the evidence of the prosecution: if the evidence of my client’s guilt is absent or of poor quality, he cannot be declared guilty. If, on the other hand the evidence is overwhelming, or my client admits to committing the offence charged, I will suggest to her to plead guilty and I then devote my efforts to the question of the sentence that the judge should impose.

I strongly believe in the great principles of our criminal law, like the presumption of innocence, the right to make full answer and defence, and the right to a fair trial. These broad principles are the ingredients in a just trial and they are pillars of a free and democratic society.

Contrary to what some people believe, most of the adolescents I defend do not go to trial. In many cases, my work consists of negotiating with the Crown prosecutor with the goal of obtaining the most appropriate sentence for my client under the circumstances. For example, I can convince the prosecutor that community work would be a sufficient sentence, rather than placing the adolescent in custody in a youth centre. If the evidence is weak, I can also try to persuade him that, rather than risk an acquittal, it would be better from his standpoint to reduce the charges against my client in return for a guilty plea. Before negotiating and arriving at an agreement with the prosecutor, I always have to consult the adolescent. Even if I am there to help and advise him, I can never forget that I have to defend his interests and that it is always he who has the last word.

I hope that this has shown you the importance of my role as a defence lawyer. I consider my job to be the defence of the rights of young people.

Special constable

You will often see me in the courtrooms or patrolling the halls of the courthouse, and will probably wonder: “Is he a police officer? A security guard?” I am both of these at once and more!

I am responsible for the protection of the public everywhere in the courthouse. Whether in a courtroom or anywhere else in the courthouse, my role is to make sure that order is maintained. A courtroom is not a recreation room; there is a certain decorum to uphold. When I am working in a courtroom, I make sure that the public respects certain rules. I have often had to tell people to stop talking, to not wear hats in court and I have even had to eject people who were being too noisy.

Some criminal cases can give rise to a great deal of emotion. In a sexual assault or murder case, for example, feelings can run high. To avoid any unfortunate events, I make sure that the families of the victims and of the accused do not sit near each other. There are also trials where we can anticipate that there will be a confrontation. I remember one case of murder that involved two street gangs. My colleagues and I had to search every person who came to the courtroom to make sure that none of them were armed.

Aside from my work in the courtrooms, I am in charge of security and keeping order everywhere else in the building. A courthouse is not a place where people are always happy. Frustration, betrayal and old grudges can sometimes lead to threats, vandalism and even acts of violence. To help me prevent such incidents in the courthouse, I have been given the same powers as a police officer. This is why I carry a weapon. This way I can arrest certain people and search them just like a police officer.

So, it is thanks to me and the other special constables that people can feel safe inside the walls of the courthouse. Through our work, my colleagues and I guarantee that no violence or intimidation will harm our justice system.

The proceedings, step by step

1. Appearance

When an adolescent is charged with a criminal offence, his appearance before a Youth Court judge is his first contact with the main actors in the judicial system. The following people are present in the courtroom: his lawyer, the Attorney General’s prosecutor (also called the Crown prosecutor, the prosecution, or simply the prosecutor), the Court staff and, of course, the judge. The public is also allowed inside the room. The judge first makes sure that the adolescent’s parents were notified of the appearance, as required by the Act.

Next, the judge reads the charge and informs the adolescent of his right to a lawyer, if he doesn’t already have one. In most cases, the adolescent pleads not guilty. This gives his lawyer the time to get to know the facts, so that he can defend him properly. The file is then put off to a later date. However, if the adolescent pleads guilty, he is declared guilty once the judge is convinced that the charge is supported by the facts.

Appearing while still in custody

In most cases, the accused adolescent is released after his arrest, but then receives an order to appear in court (a promise to appear, appearance notice, or summons).This order must be respected and followed.

However, in cases involving a serious offence or when his court record justifies it, the adolescent may be kept in detention by the police until he appears before the court. The authorities must have the detained adolescent appear before a judge within twenty-four hours of the arrest.

On the appearance date, the Attorney General’s prosecutor takes a position. He may agree that the adolescent should be released, subject to certain restrictions and conditions. If, on the other hand, he opposes the release, the adolescent stays in custody until the interim release hearing (bail hearing). If the judge refuses to release the adolescent, he remains in custody until the end of the proceedings.

2. Judicial interim release hearing (bail hearing)

This hearing allows the court to decide if the adolescent accused of committing a crime must be detained during the proceedings, or if he can be set free subject to certain conditions.

Crown privilege

If an adolescent remains in custody at the time of his appearance, the prosecutor may oppose his interim release (his release before the trial).

The debate on this question takes place before the judge and is called the judicial interim release hearing or bail hearing. This hearing must take place within three days of the accused’s appearance, since he is held in custody while waiting for the release hearing.

How the hearing unfolds

As a general rule, the Attorney General’s prosecutor has the investigating police officer testify before the court. The prosecutor tries to use this testimony to show that releasing the accused would endanger public security or that detention is necessary to ensure that the adolescent shows up for the rest of the proceedings.

The Court’s decision

After hearing the parties, if the judge is convinced by the prosecution’s arguments, he orders the detention of the accused until the end of the proceedings.

Otherwise, the court orders the release of the adolescent. The adolescent must then sign a promise to respect certain conditions until the trial. These conditions might include a curfew, a prohibition on owning weapons, or a prohibition on contacting the victim or witnesses.

3. The “pro forma” hearing

This step of the legal process is where the Crown informs the defence of the evidence that he has against the accused. At this stage, negotiations will often begin between the Crown prosecutor and the defence lawyer to attempt to settle the case.

Disclosure

When an adolescent is first charged, his lawyer won’t have very much information about the evidence that the police have collected against him.

The prosecutor must provide the defence with copies of the written statements made by each witness interviewed by the police, as well as a copy of the investigation report. This step is called “disclosure” and takes place during the “pro forma” proceedings.

Negotiation

After becoming familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence, the defence and prosecution may want to try to negotiate a settlement of the case. By negotiating, the parties might be able to avoid the excessive costs of a trial.

When they return before the judge, the parties are ready to submit their settlement and they often propose solutions that both sides find acceptable. If the negotiations fail, the parties ask the judge to set a trial date.

4. Preliminary Inquiry

The general principle

The preliminary inquiry is part of criminal court procedure. It is only used in the more serious youth cases. The preliminary inquiry is heard by a judge before the trial at the request of either the prosecution or the accused. At the preliminary inquiry, the judge does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Nor does he consider the quality of the evidence at this stage. Instead, the goal is simply to determine whether evidence exists in the first place. The preliminary inquiry makes it possible to avoid having a trial where there is absolutely no evidence on at least one essential element of the offence charged.

How the preliminary inquiry unfolds

During the preliminary inquiry, the prosecutor presents the elements needed to prove the offence, using witness testimony, documents and other evidence. At this point, not all of the evidence needs to be presented. In fact, the party who asks for a preliminary inquiry must tell the court which specific topics should be dealt with, and which witnesses or evidence the party wants to examine.

The advantages

The preliminary inquiry is a useful time for the defence to evaluate and learn more about the available evidence — without risking a conviction. In this process the accused can ask witnesses to clearly explain their version of the facts. The defence can ask multiple questions of the witnesses without necessarily truly confronting them. This makes it possible to measure how believable each witness is, and to prepare the ground for the next phase: the trial.

5. The trial

This is a hearing where the Crown tries to prove the guilt of the adolescent beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial ends with the lawyers’ arguments, where they explain their respective positions to the judge.

The burden of proof

In any criminal trial, even a youth trial, it’s up to the prosecutor to show the court that the accused committed the offence alleged against her. This has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that the judge must not have any doubt that the accused really did commit the crimes at issue. This is a long-standing rule in Canadian criminal law, and it is based on the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The witnesses’ testimony

Since it is up to the prosecutor to prove the accused person guilty, the prosecution has to present his witnesses first. With the help of eyewitnesses, police and experts, the prosecutor tries to show that the adolescent committed the offence as charged.

For his part, the defence lawyer challenges the believability of the Crown’s witnesses by asking very precise questions. This is called “cross-examination.” The defence lawyer can also ask his own witnesses to testify — even the accused can choose to testify, or not. The defence witnesses are also cross-examined, but by the prosecutor.

Argument

When each side has finished presenting its evidence and all the witnesses have been heard by the court, each lawyer is allowed to explain his arguments to the judge. These are supposed to be based on the evidence the court heard, as well as the current criminal law on the subject.

This final step concludes the trial and helps the judge to decide whether to declare the accused guilty or innocent.

6. Verdict

After the trial or a guilty plea, the judge must decide whether or not the adolescent is guilty of committing the offences alleged against her. His decision on this question is called the verdict.

The role of the judge

During a trial, the role of the judge is basically to listen carefully to the evidence and the lawyers’ arguments. Afterwards, taking all of this into account, he must decide whether the accused is criminally responsible for the offence she has been charged with. This decision constitutes the “verdict” (not to be confused with the “sentence,” which is explained later).

The basis of the verdict

Beyond his personal opinions of the case, the judge has to base his verdict on the evidence shown during the trial, and on the rules of Canadian criminal law. After an in-depth look at the evidence, if the judge thinks that the accused managed to raise a reasonable doubt in his mind about her guilt, he must acquit her. However, if the prosecution has been able to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court will declare a guilty verdict.

7. Punishment (sentence)

This is a measure imposed by a judge on an adolescent after there has been a guilty verdict.

Legal principles

When a Youth Court finds an adolescent guilty of an offence, it has to impose one or several measures as a consequence of the person’s act.

In adult court this would generally mean a regular sentence, but in Youth Court a special “youth sentence” is imposed. This takes the form of a court order that the adolescent must respect, if she doesn’t want to risk the possibility of other charges being brought against her.

Youth sentences differ from adult sentences. However, in serious criminal cases like murder, the youth court can give the adolescent an adult sentence. The court can only do this if there is no youth sentence which would be appropriate, given the seriousness of the adolescent’s crime. Even though everyone must answer for their actions, the first priority of the law is to teach the adolescent to develop a sense of responsibility for the offence that she has committed. It also has to be fair and fit the seriousness of the crime. Finally, the law is supposed to help the adolescent to adapt to, and re-enter, her society.

Possible choices

The law allows the judge to impose a whole range of sentences on the adolescent, from a simple warning to placement in detention, to a combination of several elements.

There are punishments that don’t involve detention, where the adolescent is able to keep a measure of freedom. Among these we find reprimands, fines, compensation, reimbursement, volunteer work in the community, etc. There are also sentences that involve detention — that take away the person’s liberty. In fact, detention is like a prison sentence given to an adult, except the adolescent stays in a Youth Centre instead of a prison or penitentiary. Finally, there are other sentences which offer additional choices for the judge who could otherwise order a detention sentence. These include participating in an intensive support and supervision programme, or a custody and supervision order, which involves an intensive programme of rehabilitation.

8. Appeals

An appeal is the way a convicted person or a prosecutor opposes the decision of a judge in front of another court: a court of appeal.

The Youth Criminal Justice System allows people to appeal a decision given by the Youth Court, whether it be a verdict of guilt, an acquittal (not guilty verdict) or a sentence.


Choosing an appeal court

The court that will hear an appeal depends on the type of offence tried in the original hearing. If it was a summary conviction offence – shoplifting, for example – the appeal is made at the Superior Court of Québec.

If it involved an indictable offence (serious crimes like robbery, murder, attempted murder), the person wanting to appeal goes directly to the Court of Appeal of Québec.

There is a Superior Court and a Court of Appeal in every Canadian province, though they are often known by different names. Some cases go as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada are final (there is no appeal).

When an appeal is made, the court considering it will not change the first judge’s decision unless there is an obvious error, serious enough to have influenced the outcome of the case. It’s not enough for the appeal judge to have an opinion that is just a bit different from that of the first judge.