Gun incident youth denied bail

A youth accused of possessing a firearm at Yorkton Regional High School and subsequently attempting to obstruct justice will remain in custody until at least September 27.

The boy, who cannot be named because he is under the age of 18, was arrested June 20 after police received a complaint regarding a social media post indicating there was a student with a gun at the school.

School officials locked down the school and RCMP quickly subdued the suspect and charged him with possession of a weapon (an Airsoft gun), carrying a concealed weapon and possession of marijuana. He was also charged with two counts of failure to comply with an undertaking as he was already on release conditions for an alleged assault in the spring.

On June 22, a judge in Regina released the young man, but he was soon back in custody charged with allegedly uttering threats, intimidation of a justice system participant and another breach for not keeping the peace.

At a bail hearing August 4, prosecutor Fred Fisher opposed the defendant’s release on all three grounds. On the second ground, Fisher argued detention was required to protect the public peace, as evidenced by the fact he was rearrested so shortly after being granted judicial interim release.

The third ground, that release would undermine public confidence in the justice system, was satisfied by the very nature of the new charges falling under the umbrella of obstruction of justice, Fisher said.

On behalf of the defence, legal aid attorney Richard Yaholnitsky argued for release saying his client had learned his lesson and had agreed to mental health assessment and addiction and psychiatric treatment. The lawyer said protecting the public peace and upholding the integrity of the justice systems would be accomplished by strict release conditions including living with his mother under curfew and participation in psychiatric treatment and addictions programming.

Judge Patrick Koskie said even taking into consideration the Youth Criminal Justice Act principle that a youth should only be denied release under the most extenuating circumstances, he could not see his way clear to grant bail.

Koskie outlined just how serious the alleged original crime was noting it was not just possession of a firearm, which is serious enough, but involved a school.

The judge dismissed the first ground—that detention was required to ensure the youth attends future court dates—but agreed with the prosecution on the second ground calling it a “textbook” case.

On the third ground, Koskie cited the strength of the Crown’s case and the potential for significant jail time in case of a conviction.

In closing, the judge said, his primary goal, considering the age of the accused was ensuring there was an adequate rehabilitation plan, which he did not see was yet fully realized.

He addressed the defendant directly telling him he had to commit to getting help and treating this as an “I-have-to-change-the-way-I’m-living moment.” The judge thanked the parents for their participation noting many young people he sees are not so lucky.

“[Your parents are in, that’s a good deal for you,” he added.

The case was adjourned until September 27 to allow for a mental health assessment and psychiatric report.

Yaholnitsky said at that time the case should be resolved without going to trial. Nevertheless, Koskie reserved October 21 for a trial to ensure there would be minimal delay if a trial is required.