Supreme Court Further Dismantles Harper Government's Tough-on-Crime Agenda
"The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down as unconstitutional two
more planks of the defeated Harper government’s tough-on-crime platform.
It struck down the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions for drug
offenders who have a prior criminal record for drug offences as well as
ruling that a person denied bail because of prior convictions should get
credit for time served before sentencing.
It is not as if mandatory minimums or the Truth in Sentencing Act are
gone, but elements of them, laid out in two decisions released Friday, have been declared in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
View the Decisions:
R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13
R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14
Your resource for news, research, opinion and comment in the world of Criminology and Criminal Justice, brought to you by the Criminology Library, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
Showing posts with label Supreme Court of Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court of Canada. Show all posts
Six strikes against the Tories from the Supreme Court http://t.co/bm6OuJBohP via @torontostar
— Crim Library UTL (@CrimLib) February 5, 2015
Think Tank Names Supreme Court of Canada "Policy-Maker of the Year"
"The Supreme Court of Canada was remarkably united against the Conservative government in a year of unusually important rulings, a conservative think tank found in naming the court 'policy-maker of the year.'
The government had a clear win in just one of the 10 biggest cases, on aboriginal land rights, while in seven cases it was a clear loser, a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute said.
The losses covered a wide range of areas – the government’s attempt to create an elected Senate, to keep thousands of convicted criminals in jail for longer terms, and even to appoint a judge of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s choosing to the Supreme Court. In the seven clear losses, the court was unanimous five times. Only three judges dissented in the seven cases combined."
View the MacDonald-Laurier Institute Report
"The Supreme Court of Canada was remarkably united against the Conservative government in a year of unusually important rulings, a conservative think tank found in naming the court 'policy-maker of the year.'
The government had a clear win in just one of the 10 biggest cases, on aboriginal land rights, while in seven cases it was a clear loser, a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute said.
The losses covered a wide range of areas – the government’s attempt to create an elected Senate, to keep thousands of convicted criminals in jail for longer terms, and even to appoint a judge of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s choosing to the Supreme Court. In the seven clear losses, the court was unanimous five times. Only three judges dissented in the seven cases combined."
View the MacDonald-Laurier Institute Report
Courts
Prominent Ottawa Judge Strikes Down Mandatory Victim Surcharge
In a carefully reasoned, 31-page decision released Thursday, Ontario Court Justice David Paciocco found that a reasonable person who was properly informed would find $900 in mandatory victim surcharges for addicted, impoverished and troubled Inuit offender Shaun Michael so grossly disproportionate that it would outrage the standards of decency.
"Mr. Big" Ruling A "Game Changer" For Those Convicted In Sting Operations
A Supreme Court of Canada ruling calling into question the reliability of confessions obtained during so-called Mr. Big sting operations could prompt the review of dozens of convictions, some legal experts say.
Read the Supreme Court Ruling
Big Political Money Now Floods Judges Races, Too
Spending on judicial races has been ticking up along with overall election spending for the past decade, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which lifted restrictions on political spending by groups unaffiliated with individual campaigns, has driven money into races once run on shoestring budgets.
Prominent Ottawa Judge Strikes Down Mandatory Victim Surcharge
In a carefully reasoned, 31-page decision released Thursday, Ontario Court Justice David Paciocco found that a reasonable person who was properly informed would find $900 in mandatory victim surcharges for addicted, impoverished and troubled Inuit offender Shaun Michael so grossly disproportionate that it would outrage the standards of decency.
"Mr. Big" Ruling A "Game Changer" For Those Convicted In Sting Operations
A Supreme Court of Canada ruling calling into question the reliability of confessions obtained during so-called Mr. Big sting operations could prompt the review of dozens of convictions, some legal experts say.
Read the Supreme Court Ruling
Big Political Money Now Floods Judges Races, Too
Spending on judicial races has been ticking up along with overall election spending for the past decade, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which lifted restrictions on political spending by groups unaffiliated with individual campaigns, has driven money into races once run on shoestring budgets.
Excusing killers for self-defence is now more political than judicial
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision regarding Nicole Ryan – the Nova
Scotia woman who tried to hire a hit man to kill her husband – has
attracted considerable attention. This is, in part, because of the
dramatic nature of the facts and, in part, because it highlights the
troubling legal position of women who try to escape abusive
relationships. But the Ryan case also underscores the delicate
relationship between the courts and Parliament in the development of the
criminal law. The McLachlin Court’s deferential attitude to Parliament,
long apparent in its constitutional law decisions, is now just as plain
in its approach to criminal law.
Read on...
Read on...
Aboriginal sentencing rules ignored due to lack of funding, interest
Thirteen years after the Supreme Court of Canada issued a demand for
information that would enable trial judges to pass more culturally
sensitive sentences for aboriginal defendants, its edict has been
largely ignored in much of the country.
In most regions, a lack of funding or a lack of interest has meant that detailed reports delving into the background of offenders are simply not prepared.
Yet, these documents – named Gladue reports after the defendant in the 1999 Supreme Court’s decision from which they evolved – are a vital aid to judges considering the impact on a defendant of the historical mistreatment of aboriginal communities. At the core of the Gladue decision was a deep concern with the over-representation of aboriginal people in jail. When judges are deprived of rich, case-specific information, aboriginal offenders are much more likely to be thrown in jail at a disproportionate rate.
“The reports are indispensable,” said Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. “If you don’t get the best information with respect to the individual background and sentencing options, the judge is not in a position to come to the fit and proper sentence that Gladue requires.”
Read on...
In most regions, a lack of funding or a lack of interest has meant that detailed reports delving into the background of offenders are simply not prepared.
Yet, these documents – named Gladue reports after the defendant in the 1999 Supreme Court’s decision from which they evolved – are a vital aid to judges considering the impact on a defendant of the historical mistreatment of aboriginal communities. At the core of the Gladue decision was a deep concern with the over-representation of aboriginal people in jail. When judges are deprived of rich, case-specific information, aboriginal offenders are much more likely to be thrown in jail at a disproportionate rate.
“The reports are indispensable,” said Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. “If you don’t get the best information with respect to the individual background and sentencing options, the judge is not in a position to come to the fit and proper sentence that Gladue requires.”
Read on...
Vancouver sex workers can proceed with prostitution law challenge: top court
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Vancouver sex workers can
proceed with a legal challenge of the country’s prostitution laws.
The 9-0 ruling dismisses a federal government appeal against the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and former sex worker Sheryl Kiselbach.
The government argued that since no prostitution charges had been laid, the society and Ms. Kiselbach lacked the legal standing to pursue the case.
A British Columbia judge agreed with the government, but the provincial court of appeal said the group has public-interest standing and could proceed.
The high court justices today agreed with the appeal court.
The case may be moot, however, since an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling struck down some of the same laws under challenge in the Vancouver case.
The federal government is appealing the Ontario ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Breaking News.....
The 9-0 ruling dismisses a federal government appeal against the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and former sex worker Sheryl Kiselbach.
The government argued that since no prostitution charges had been laid, the society and Ms. Kiselbach lacked the legal standing to pursue the case.
A British Columbia judge agreed with the government, but the provincial court of appeal said the group has public-interest standing and could proceed.
The high court justices today agreed with the appeal court.
The case may be moot, however, since an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling struck down some of the same laws under challenge in the Vancouver case.
The federal government is appealing the Ontario ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Breaking News.....
Quebec appeal judge seen as likely pick for top court
A former university professor who is a respected expert in
constitutional, administrative and labour law is emerging as a strong
favourite for the next appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to choose imminently from a list of three candidates that an all-party Parliamentary committee has prepared.
Two more Quebec vacancies will arise in the coming years, when Mr. Justice Morris Fish reaches mandatory retirement in 2013, and when Mr. Justice Louis LeBel retires in 2014. The two people not selected in this round are bound to figure prominently later.
Madam Justice Marie-France Bich, 56, of the Quebec Court of Appeal is widely seen as the leading contender for the nomination. A full-time law professor at the University of Montreal from 1983 until her 2004 appointment to the Quebec Court of Appeal, Judge Bich also presided over the Quebec bar association’s labour and employment law committee from 1997 to 2004. Choosing her would spare Mr. Harper the controversy of not replacing Madam Justice Marie Deschamps with a woman.
Read on....
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to choose imminently from a list of three candidates that an all-party Parliamentary committee has prepared.
Two more Quebec vacancies will arise in the coming years, when Mr. Justice Morris Fish reaches mandatory retirement in 2013, and when Mr. Justice Louis LeBel retires in 2014. The two people not selected in this round are bound to figure prominently later.
Madam Justice Marie-France Bich, 56, of the Quebec Court of Appeal is widely seen as the leading contender for the nomination. A full-time law professor at the University of Montreal from 1983 until her 2004 appointment to the Quebec Court of Appeal, Judge Bich also presided over the Quebec bar association’s labour and employment law committee from 1997 to 2004. Choosing her would spare Mr. Harper the controversy of not replacing Madam Justice Marie Deschamps with a woman.
Read on....
Courts examine whether jurors are violated during selection
A series of cases occupying the country’s highest courts has cast a
spotlight on Crown attempts to probe the personal backgrounds of
prospective jurors, potentially undermining the sanctity of the jury
system.
With the Supreme Court of Canada still deliberating over three cases involving such jury vetting, the Ontario Court of Appeal has wrapped up a week of appeals that also included a look into whether the jury system treats aboriginals unfairly.
The most contentious case involves a 2007 murder trial in Barrie, Ont., where the Crown was privy to private, background information about the mental health, age and driving records of many of the 280 citizens in the jury pool. The defendant, Clare Alexander Spiers, is appealing his conviction on the basis that the background checks stacked the odds against him.
Read on...
With the Supreme Court of Canada still deliberating over three cases involving such jury vetting, the Ontario Court of Appeal has wrapped up a week of appeals that also included a look into whether the jury system treats aboriginals unfairly.
The most contentious case involves a 2007 murder trial in Barrie, Ont., where the Crown was privy to private, background information about the mental health, age and driving records of many of the 280 citizens in the jury pool. The defendant, Clare Alexander Spiers, is appealing his conviction on the basis that the background checks stacked the odds against him.
Read on...
Judges must consider history when sentencing aboriginals: Supreme Court
Sentencing judges who do not carefully consider lenient or creative sentences for aboriginal offenders are violating the law, the Supreme Court of Canada said in a major aboriginal law decision today.
Releasing rulings in a pair of much-anticipated cases that go to the heart of separate treatment for aboriginal offenders, the court said that considering factors such as cultural oppression and a history of abuse in the residential school system must be central to the sentencing process.
“When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples,” a 6-1 majority said.
The court said that the promise of a landmark 1998 decision that mandated distinctive treatment for aboriginal offences has not been met.
A rare look at the inner-workings of the Supreme Court of Canada
At lunchtime each day, Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie joins his eight colleagues in their private dining room. They joke, gripe and gossip about lawyers and other judges, covering every conceivable topic except the one foremost on their minds – the cases they must decide.
Lunching together and avoiding after-hours fraternizing are part of a concerted plan to eliminate the sort of fractious infighting that has been all too common on previous benches, Judge Binnie said in an exclusive interview to mark his retirement after serving 14 years as a backbone and intellectual leader of the court.
“The worst fix we could get into is to have little cabals discussing their perspective and voting in blocs,” the 72-year-old judge said. “We don’t want judges going from room to room, pigeonholing colleagues and then presenting other colleagues with: ‘Well, I’ve already got four judges to agree with me, and that’s the outcome of the case.’ ”
Top judges giving up silence to embrace the people’s court
KIRK MAKIN
A blue-chip crowd of several hundred jazz aficionados cheered and applauded at a swank Sunday night concert recently as Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler stood on stage and belted out part of an Ira Gershwin standard, I Can't Get Started.One of the country’s top judges? Singing to a gathering of tuxedo-clad jazz freaks?
The scene, at a concert in his honour, signified more than just Chief Justice Winkler’s refined musical tastes. It was symbolic of the judiciary’s earnest attempt to shore up a shaky sense of public confidence.
In little more than a decade, judges have emerged from their cloistered chambers and – with varying degrees of discomfort – walked among the hoi polloi. Many are regulars on the speakers circuit and in classrooms. Some have taken to the airwaves to field questions and give media interviews.
Supreme Court urged to overhaul sentencing philosophy
KIRK MAKIN
Wide disparities in sentences are precipitating a crisis of confidence in the justice system, Alberta’s top court has warned in a call aimed at the entire judiciary. In a ruling designed to prod the Supreme Court of Canada into revamping sentencing philosophies, a five-judge Alberta Court of Appeal panel said that trial judges must be restrained from injecting their personal views and predilections into the sentencing process.
They warned that, unless the judiciary gets its own house in order and fashions a predictable regime of minimum sentences, politicians will step in and do it for them.
The majority – comprised of Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, Mr. Justice Jean Cote and Mr. Justice Jack Watson – went so far as to issue an invitation to Parliament to “consider its options” if the judiciary fails to create rational, proportionate and predictable sentences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)