In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court determined that a convicted individual is entitled to the lesser of two punishments, either the one in effect when the offence took place or the one in effect at the time of sentencing. This decision overturned the Quebec court’s decision that a convicted offender has the right to the least harsh punishment in effect from the time of the offence until the sentencing.
WHAT HAPPENED?
In the case of R. v. Poulin, the accused was convicted in 2016 of sexual assault and acts of gross indecency from incidents occurring between 1979 to 1987. Poulin was found guilty of offences against a child between the ages of seven and fifteen. Crown prosecutors asked for a prison term of 3 ½ to 5 years. Poulin’s defence team requested a conditional sentence given Poulin’s advanced age (82 at the time) and his poor health. A Quebec court sentenced Poulin to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community, for the charges of gross indecency.
The Crown was unsuccessful in its appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal and the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
At issue in this appeal was the interpretation of section 11(i) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads as follows:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
The question is whether this provision signifies a comparison of the lesser sentence at two relevant times (i.e. the commission of the offence and the sentencing of the offence) or whether the provision signifies a consideration of variations between the time of the commission of the offence and the sentence.
The judges of the Supreme Court split their decision 4-3 and concluded that Poulin was not eligible for the conditional sentence as it did not exist either at the time of the offence or at the time of his sentencing (it only existed temporarily between these two points in time).
Justice Shellah Martin, writing on behalf of the majority of the court, stated:
The legal rights reflected in our Charter represent the core tenents of fairness in our criminal justice system. The right to comb the past for the most favourable punishment does not belong among these rights.
The majority of the court found that the language of section 11(i) of the Charter suggested the application of a “binary approach”, as opposed to a “global approach”. The binary approach would not permit Poulin to be granted a conditional sentence as it was neither in force at the time of commission or at the time of his sentence. The global approach would permit Poulin to be granted a conditional sentence because it was in force for a period of time between the commission of the crimes and his sentence.
HOW ARE SENTENCES IMPOSED?
If an accused either pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial, a Judge must impose a sentence that is fair given the circumstances of the offence, the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility.
The Court will consider both aggravating and mitigating factors relating to both the offender and the offence itself.
Aggravating factors are those that the court relies upon which may increase the sentence, which may include:
- Your criminal record;
- The facts of the offence (i.e. your role in the crime, whether you have committed the crime on multiple occasions, whether a weapon was used and how, whether property was damaged or money was taken);
- The impact of the crime on the victims (i.e. whether the crime involved a person under the age of 18 years, whether the victim’s health was seriously harmed, whether the victim received permanent physical or psychological injury, whether the victim experienced financial harm due to the crime); and
- Your association with other criminal organizations (i.e. the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal organization or committed as an act of terrorism).
Mitigating factors are those that the court relies upon to lighten the sentence, which may include:
- The absence of a criminal record;
- The facts of your offence (i.e. your role in the crime, co-operation when you were arrested, addiction or mental health issues);
- How you’ve behaved since the crime (i.e. whether you have taken steps to address addiction or mental health issues, whether you have followed the release order or volunteered or given money to charity to repair the damage you have caused); and
- Your personal circumstances (i.e. age, health, cultural background, education, work history and potential work opportunities, children and dependents).
The Court will take all of these factors into account when determining an appropriate sentence in an effort to maintain a just and safe society for all Canadians.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Barrison Law online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times. We are available when you need us most.