A pre-sentence report recommends an absolute discharge for two teenagers who participated in an exchange to set their high school on fire and shoot their classmates, inspired by the Columbine tragedy in the United States.
Four young people, whose identity is protected by the Youth Protection Act, exchanged messages in June 2021 which were presented in evidence earlier this fall, as reported then by the daily The Press. According to the article, the young people wanted to “make history” and spoke of “projectile injuries”. A detailed minute-by-minute plan said they would set fire to the school and then shoot students as they left while they blasted music. One young person in particular was targeted.
Two of the teenagers pleaded guilty from the outset and received respective sentences of 12 and 15 months of probation last May. The other two, who had pleaded not guilty, changed their plea last September, a few days before the trial. They pleaded guilty to charges of threatening to set fire to the school and threatening to cause harm, but the charge of threatening to kill a youngster who was targeted in the plan was dropped .
These two young people were back at the Youth Chamber of Montreal on Friday for sentencing representations. Their parents, like the defence, told judge Paul Gzrela that the young people never intended to put this plan into action. The two defendants would not have participated actively in the exchanges.
“Empathetic” young people
The pre-sentence report, written by an expert and presented to the judge on Friday, agrees.
“I think it’s pretty clear that there was no real intention behind those threats, behind that discussion, which was supposed to be a private discussion,” summed up the report’s editor, Laurence André- Olivier. They were young people who were shocked and ashamed to learn that the conversation had been exposed. They never intended for these words to be disclosed and they never intended to hurt anyone, and that came up repeatedly throughout the evaluation. »
According to her, the young people were “very empathetic” and “assumed their share of responsibility”. Considering all these observations, she recommends an unconditional discharge for the two teenagers. “The recommendation that I am offering you today is the one that made the most sense clinically and in terms of rehabilitation,” explained Ms. André-Olivier, who specified that the fact of “incarcating a young in a delinquency profile” can have negative impacts.
Defense lawyers also believe that the youths have already been punished enough through the legal process and hope to “limit the damage”.
“I would just like to put the[accent] on the conclusion [du rapport] who is going to say that not only are the conditions not necessary, but that they are also harmful”, indicated in her plea Me Christine Brosseau, the lawyer for the young co-accused. “It is not the purpose of youth criminal justice to undermine young people’s plans for the future,” she added.
The “adults” fault
Speaking loud and clear, pointing and banging on his desk to make his point, the lawyer for the second youth, Me Hugues Surprenant, for his part pleaded that “the adults dropped the ball” in this whole story, which does not would be a big misunderstanding. “There are adults who have not done their job to protect these children,” he said.
In “distress”, one of the four co-accused had asked for help, 90 days after the exchange on the plan. That’s when she shared this one. However, according to counsel, the response was inadequate. “When adults heard [l’adolescente] tell them “I need help”, we called the police. And the police saw that and they said to themselves: “this is a conspiracy, this is an attempted mass murder” and they are arrested for that. And then we’re going to interrogate them. And they’re all going to say, “Come on, I would never do that!” »
He considers the whole story to be “surreal”. ” [Mon client] would like the judge to understand that there was no intention, he did not want […] do harm to anyone, they are teenagers who talk to each other about this and that, who have seen Columbine “, launching a formal attack against the professor who showed this documentary in class to raise awareness, while the youngsters were only 14 years old.
He also targeted the parents of the victim who had been targeted in the plan, present in the room, affirming that these, left in the “vacuum” without the possibility of exchanging with the other parties during the procedures which have lasted for more 15 months old, “was wandered through 15 months of proceedings, feeding on the contrary their cancer and their resentment towards people who meant them no harm at all. »
parents hurt
The young man’s parents had earlier expressed the many impacts these threats had on their boy and their family: anxiety, hypervigilance, therapy, sick leave for parents, poor grades in school for the victim. What hurts them the most, they said, is the lack of consideration of the co-accused, who, according to them, “do not take it seriously”. In a poignant testimony, the mother asked for a letter of apology for her son.
The parents of the co-defendants also expressed their dismay at the magnitude of the situation. “Through these long months, and even today, we have had access to manifestations of great suffering from all the parties involved in this cause, pleaded the mother of one of the co-defendants. I often said to myself that it shouldn’t have been like this, so extreme. »
“Even today, I find it hard to understand why this situation got so carried away,” she added. Certain procedures for the conduct of legal cases are undoubtedly very useful in circumstances where they prove necessary. In other circumstances, like here, it seems to me that they can also harm and contribute to generating more suffering and anger. It’s very sad and it’s a very violent process. »
The Crown will deliver its written argument in the coming weeks and the parties will be back before Judge Gzrela on March 24 for sentencing.