deadmonton 2005 - nina louise courtepatte - the "cindy" trial
july 16th, 2007

delicious save to del.icio.us | submit to Digg


Nina Louise Courtepatte, 13, died from blunt force trauma on April 3rd, 2005.


Two adults, and three teens not identified by provision of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, were charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault.


<< may 9th, 2007 | the "cindy" trial



Law Courts Building

Justice June Ross was expecting to hear sentencing arguments from Crown and defence lawyers. Instead Ross heard a single argument from the defence, challenging the constitutionality of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.


Cindy's lawyer, Colleen Connolly, argued the current onus of having the defence prove that a young offender should be sentenced as a youth violated her client's constitutional rights.


Connolly said that it should be up to the Crown to prove that young offenders charged with serious crimes should be sentenced as adults.


If is sentenced as a youth, Cindy could receive a maximum sentence of three years in prison; if sentenced as an adult, the maximum she could face is life.


The current law puts the onus on the defence to prove that young offenders charged with first-degree murder should be sentenced as youths.


Young offenders, once sentenced as adults, can also be publicly identified when all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.


Global Edmonton image

"She was a young offender when she committed the crime," Connolly said outside court. "The onus should not be on us."


"If we're successful in our challenge then the Crown has to make the application, the Crown has to prove to the court why the young people should not be sentenced as youth."


"All we're saying is that the Crown is the one that should have to prove this," said Connolly.


Now a month shy of turning 20, Cindy was 17 years old when she participated in the murder of Nina Courtepatte. The matter was due back in court August 3rd, 2007 to pick a date for arguments on the consititutional issue alone.


Crown prosecutor John Watson said the young offender may not be sentenced until the fall.


Another young, nicknamed "Pyro," was expected to make similar constitutional arguments on July 23rd, 2007. The outcome of that challenge could apply to both cases.


In May 2007 the girl nicknamed as "Buffy" fired her lawyer just as she was to go to trial. Proceedings in her case have been delayed by a year.


Which all adds to a long wait for one person in particular: Peacha Atkinson.


The woman has attended every court date for each of the five accused, and this latest hearing was no exception.


Nina's mother sat in her usual postition in the front row, right behind Crown prosecutors Watson and Anne Schutte.


Also in attendance were family members and a few supporters.


Joseph Laboucan, 21, a member of a gang of "mall rats" from West Edmonton Mall, was found guilty of first-degree murder earlier this year. Another man, 36-year-old Michael Briscoe, was acquitted.



The trial continues.



The issue of constitutional challenge was addressed by several media outlets.


CBC Edmonton visited with University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand. Anand said judges based their sentences on evidence and not arguments.


CBC Edmonton

"The evidence tends to be fairly definitive as to whether an adult sentence or a youth sentence is warranted – at least as [sentencing goes] the judges have treated it as fairly definitive."


"It's rare that you read a case and the trial judge says 'Well, I'm just not sure and I'm going with whoever has the onus of proof.' "


"That doesn't usually happen."


The Edmonton Journal contacted lawyer Terry Romaniuk of the University of Alberta's Centre for Constitutional Studies.


He said there were several sections in the Canadian Criminal Code that contain reverse-onus clauses. Several of those sections have been challenged, with at least one struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Legally, Romaniuk said the issue relates to the fundamental guarantee that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.


Reverse-onus clauses assume a person is guilty and require that person "to prove that they are innocent, in one form or another," he said.


"In this case, you would have to prove that you should be subject to the special procedures we have for young people, rather than the normal adult route."