Criminal Defence Law Blog
“The Supreme Court did not side with the criminals; rather, it simply held that jail sentences in Canada must not be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offence. The financial costs, however, pale in comparison to the toll suffered by our democracy when people receive disproportionate jail sentences because the government chose to advance a political agenda rather than heed the objective evidence weighing against its position.”
If you’re stopped by police and you blow a warn (over .05 blood alcohol concentration) or fail (over .08 BAC) on an approved screening device the police officer will suspend your driver’s license for 3 or 90 days respectively – whether you’re guilty of an offence or not and without a trial to determine it. It’s called an administrative license suspension. Is this valid regulation of the highways or criminal punishment? In other words, is it constitutional? Finally, our highest court will decide, next month.
The vast majority of our criminal court judges are good, intelligent, knowledgeable, caring individuals who do an excellent job of balancing the interests of society with the circumstances of the individuals who appear before them. This is but one example. Our judges not only protect us from criminal conduct but they are also our last and only line of defence from unconstitutional laws and abuse of police power. It is a bad, disrespectful and harmful thing that Harper is doing by restricting and removing their judgment and authority to reach balanced, nuanced and just decisions.
In Praise of Judicial Empathy, Humility and Simplicity – Slaw.
“The majority ruling highlights how deeply at odds the government is with the country’s highest court. Since 2006, the Conservatives have created 60 mandatory minimum jail terms for guns, drugs, sex offences and other crimes, according to the justice department, helping to boost the number of federal prisoners to record heights even as crime rates dropped to 50-year lows. Some of those minimum terms could now be challenged and struck down.” How low and blatantly self-serving politically can this government stoop?
via Court strikes ‘blunt instrument’ law of mandatory sentencing – The Globe and Mail.
As fast as the Supreme Court strikes down Harper’s mandatory minimum jail sentences, Harper enacts new ones. This time for tobacco. As “Our Government is encouraged by the latest statistics which show smoking rates at 15%, representing a historic low”… it is necessary to take “serious action in order to protect Canadians and their families” by imposing jail, jail and more jail. Does ANYBODY actually believe this hyperbole?
Legislation to Keep Contraband Tobacco Off Canadian Streets Comes Into Force | Benzinga.
Jail, jail and more jail is Prime Minister Harper’s manic response to problems that don’t exist. Thank goodness we have the Supreme Court to protect us from the onslaught of this man’s draconian laws. “The ruling said the mandatory minimum sentence could ensnare people with “little or no moral fault” and who pose “little or no danger to the public.”
Many Ontario Court of Justice Judges are opposed to the Victim Surcharge Harper recently made mandatory because it is a fine levied upon every criminal conviction without regard to the person’s ability to pay. It is a disproportionate punishment upon the poor. A Superior Court Judge has now ruled that it’s okay because it’s not a punishment, just a consequence of conviction. That’s not the end of it though. We have other lines of argument and the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada to go before this thing is finally decided.
PERSONALITY MATTERS TO CLIENTS – Particularly in the criminal law field, clients come to us under a great deal of stress. They’re in our office because they have to be, not because they want to be. A client is risking a great deal in his/her choice of lawyer to represent them. They are investing a great deal of trust in the personality they choose to do so. We understand that.
A leader’s attitude trickles down to the rank and file. When we have one very senior Toronto Police Service officer arrogantly and defiantly thundering that when he detains a law abiding person, he is the authority and “he doesn’t need to give a reason for his detention of a citizen” this disrespectful, bullying attitude is sure to be adopted by all officers on patrol. This is why Ontario’s plan to circumvent your Constitutional rights by further empowering police to impose “administrative penalties” without court or judicial oversight is a very bad idea.
“In essence, officers go on a fishing expedition, ask seemingly innocuous questions of citizens, record the information in a database, keep it indefinitely, use it in future investigations, and allow it to sometimes show up in police checks requested by employers.” The police attitude: “One very senior officer reportedly thundered that he is the authority; he doesn’t need to give a reason for his detention of a citizen.” LEGALLY WRONG! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS.
Scurrilous ‘carding’ policy will lead to years of distrust: James | Toronto Star.