It is frustrating that the identity of a violent man who committed a gross violation on the Hunters Bay trail on Nov. 13, 2007 is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The rule applies to him simply because he committed the act just two days before his 18th birthday. Then, while in custody, that same man, who had since turned 18, managed to escape and commit another 11 offences before being apprehended again by police.

Throughout our reporting of the incident, we have been unable to disclose the offender’s name or any information that might give away his identity. That frustration mounted when we learned he had escaped custody and we could not get initial confirmation from police that he in fact was the same man who had committed the heinous assault on a woman walking her dog at the Hunters Bay trail.

Members of the OPP had to think about how to report it so as not to be in violation of the Act, while this newspaper was unable to responsibly connect the two incidents without proper confirmation from police.

Eventually that confirmation came. While police did not release the man’s name, they did confirm that the man, who had escaped police custody at 18, was in fact the same man who committed the horrendous assault on the Hunters Bay Trail at 17.  

That detail was important because it spoke to the nature of the offender. We were no longer simply reporting about a young offender who had fled police custody and stolen a truck, we were reporting about a man capable of violently assaulting another person.

Fortunately, police were able to use their expertise and apprehend the man promptly. Now he faces sentencing and it is unclear whether he’ll be tried as an adult or as a young offender under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

One of the main tenets of that act, revised from the Young Offenders Act in 2006, establishes that the sentencing of a young offender should be less severe than the sentencing given to an adult. It also establishes the importance of reintegrating that youth into the community.
 

The nature of the crime committed by this individual was so violent and cowardly that he does not merit any leniency. He should be tried as an adult and his name should be made public.

                                                                                                                                                   T.d.V.

-30-