Teenager’s crime ‘shocked the community’

One of the two girls who have admitted responsibility for last year’s multimillion-dollar fire at the Canada Games Centre has been sentenced to two years’ probation.

The 13-year-old, who cannot be identified because of her age, was given the maximum length of probation allowed under Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act, when she appeared in court this morning.

Territorial court Judge Michael Cozens ruled the teen is also required to preform 240 community work service hours in the first year— also the maximum number of hours allowed under the law.

She is not allowed to attend the Canada Games Centre without permission and cannot possess incendiary devices, such as a lighter.

The judge also banned the teen from having a phone, iPod or any device connected to the Internet or used for communication, without an approved adult present.

A curfew for the first year was also imposed.

The teen and a 12-year-old girl both pleaded guilty to setting the fire on June 24, 2011.

The city’s director of administrative services, Rob Fendrick, said early this afternoon the total cost of the damage is estimated at $6.8 million, all of which is covered by insurance.

Parts of the centre were closed for months, while the damage was repaired.

A sentencing hearing for the second girl has yet to scheduled.

The pair have admitted to being at the centre’s ATCO arena, along with an 11-year-old boy, when the trio pulled down some of the speed skating mats to build forts.

The two girls took lighters they had and together lit one of the mat’s handles on fire.

The boy put that fire out with his hand, the judge said.

The two girls then lit the handles of a second mat on fire and the trio ran from the area, passing three fire alarms and numerous adults without alerting anyone.

While running away, the teen told the boy that she would punch him if he told anyone what they had done, the court heard.

She took pictures of the fire with her cell phone and exchanged text messages with friends talking about the blaze.

When initially interviewed by the RCMP, the teen told police she had seen a First Nations girl come out of one of the change rooms at the time of the fire.

After police obtained surveillance videos of the incident, the teen admitted to having started the blaze.

She later stated that the pair decided to blame an aboriginal girl because there were a large number of First Nations girls at the CGC for a cadet program, and they thought this story would be believable.

The girl said she is not prejudice against First Nations people, the judge said.

Crown prosecutors had been seeking house arrest for the girl.

In his decision, Cozens said that while house arrest was a possibility in this case, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, all available sanctions other than custody need to be considered.

“While her actions both in starting the fire and the immediate aftermath, are sufficiently blameworthy to take her beyond the least culpable youthful offender, I find that they are not such that she should be viewed as being among the worst, or frankly, even close to the worst, youthful non-violent offender,” he said.

The girl, who has no previous criminal record, has complied with all the conditions she has been under since her arrest and is actively involved in positive activities both inside and outside school, Cozens said.

Sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act is “guided by principles focused on holding youth accountable for their actions through meaningful consequences, while attempting to provide the guidance and support necessary to assist youth in redirecting their lives towards positive and socially acceptable behaviour,” the judge said.

Despite some indication that she initially enjoyed the notoriety she received from starting the fire, Cozens said he accepts that she is sorry for what she has done.

The judge acknowledged that this crime “shocked the community.”

“(She) must be held accountable for the crimes she has committed. I recognize that there is no possible way that any sentence can even come close to compensating the community for the harm (she) has caused,” Cozens said.

“I cannot, however, without violating the purpose and principles of sentencing, attempt to compensate the community or give voice to the community anger and frustration by imposing a denunciatory or punitive sentence on (her).”