Appeal allowed, McIntyre J. dissenting. 9 and 7 of the Char ter. This case, the obvious inspiration for Boston Legal episode Roe v Wade: The Musical, raises two important points: firstly a man deceived into creating a baby still has financial obligations to that child irrespective of deception and secondly even if deception is involved a father still has no right to be consulted in whether the pregnancy is terminated or not. A finding that s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not offend s. 12 of the Charter will not deprive the section of scope for application. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. III, s. 2(a), (b). A Scottish man sought an injunction to prevent his wife from having an abortion in 1997. In conclusion, I agree with Lamer J. that imprisonment for seven years for the unauthorized importation or exportation of a small quantity of cannabis for personal use would be cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter and for this reason the words "but not less than seven years" in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act must be held to be of no force or effect. His funeral service took place at the Burari Christian cemetery on Thursday afternoon . Both countries protect roughly the same rights but the means by which this has been achieved are not identical. For example, a long term of penal servitude for he or she who has imported large amounts of heroin for the purpose of trafficking would certainly not contravene s. 12 of the Charter, quite the contrary. It purports to leave a sentencing judge powerless to relieve against the harshness of such a sentence. While the Lord's Day Act was attacked primarily because it was enacted for a religious purpose, individuals may also challenge enactments on the ground that their effect is to infringe the religious rights of third parties (see R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., 1986 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account. . R. v. Widdifield, 6 C.R.L.Q. 9 and 12 of the Charter. D believed the fixtures belonged to him. But the Crown's justification fails the second prong, namely minimum impairment of the rights protected by s. 12. It was "unusual" because of its extreme nature. . ), refd to. (2d) 343; R. v. Natrall (1972), 1972 CanLII 1017 (BC CA), 32 D.L.R. (2d) 129 (Ont. agreed with Craig J.A., but expanded somewhat on the scope and meaning of s. 9. There is a further point which should be made regarding proportionality. Section 9 provides, as follows: "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned." R. v. Smith (Edward Dewey), 1987 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 1045, <, Carmona v. Ward, 576 F at (2d) 405 (not available on CanLII), People v. Broadie, 371 NYS (2d) 471 (not available on CanLII), Regina v. Smith, 35 CR (3d) 256, 11 CRR 283 (not available on CanLII), Appellant pleaded guilty to importing seven and a half ounces of cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 5(1) of the. (2) Is it unnecessary because there are adequate alternatives? 680, at pp. Dickson J., as he then was. Current bid: US $1.85 [ 2 bids ] ApproximatelyC $2.52 Enter US $2.10 or more Shipping: US $4.95 (approx C $6.74)Standard Shipping. In-house law team, Damage to property mistake Criminal Damage Act 1971. It becomes clear, then, that while the barbarous punishments of the past which called into being the prohibition of some three centuries ago are mercifully unlikely to recur, the prohibition is saved from any suggestion of obsolescence by the addition of the word "treatment". Held: There was an appropriation even though he acted with the authority of the shop manager. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? In such a case the accused has an interest in having the sentence considered without regard to a constitutionally invalid mandatory minimum sentence provision. One might question the wisdom or desirability of this legislative decision but, in my view, given the possibility of early parole, it cannot be said that the minimum sentence is so severe that it outrages the public conscience or is degrading to human dignity. For four months the post was not filled. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. In imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the judge will assess the circumstances of the case in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence. In the United States, where criminal law is within the competence of the state legislatures and thus varies from state to state, the judiciary was concerned with possible discrepancies in the imposition of the death penalty throughout their country. Appellant pleaded guilty to importing seven and a half ounces of cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act. H.C.); Belliveau v. The Queen, 1984 CanLII 5298 (FC), [1984] 2 F.C. There is no problem of definition nor of recognition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the extreme limit of the application, but of course the day has passed when the barbarous punishments of earlier days were a threat to those convicted of crime. A meaning must be ascribed to it. (3d) 363 (N.S.C.A. Even though the protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment found in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights was raised in many cases, the Canadian courts were often reluctant to examine the merits of the argument. R v Denton [1982] 1 All ER 65, [1982] Crim. Parliament retains, while acting within the limits so prescribed, a full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention. in Miller and Cockriell, supra, at p. 688, "whether the punishment prescribed is so excessive as to outrage standards of decency". Punishment found to be cruel and unusual could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Section 7 sets out broad and general rights which often extend over the same ground as other rights set out in the Charter. The offence for which he was indicted is in these terms: Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. 's statement of the test for cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, including his approach to the application of disproportionality and arbitrariness. Borins Co. Ct. J. decided that the mandatory minimum of seven years' imprisonment imposed by s. 5(2) of the. ) Berger S. "The Application of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause Under the Canadian Bill of Rights" (1978), 24. C.A. In my view, capital punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment if it cannot be shown that its deterrent value outweighs the objections which can be brought against it. 102 (B.C.S.C. Further, there will be a range of sentences which may be considered excessive, but not so excessive or so disproportionate as to "outrage standards of decency" and thereby justify judicial interference under s. 12 of the Charter. Februar 1975 [3] R v Smith (Winston) 61 Cr App R 128, [1975] Crim LR 472 R v Smith (Percy) [1976] Crim LR 511, DC "Trafficking" was defined as meaning importation, manufacture, sale, etc. Per La Forest J.: While in substantial agreement with Lamer J., nothing was said about the role of arbitrariness in determining whether there has been cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Such a result reduces the significance of the absolute prohibition in s. 12 of the Charter and does not afford, in my view, an acceptable approach to a constitutional question. It shocked the communal conscience. (3d) 306; Belliveau v. The Queen, 1984 CanLII 5298 (FC), [1984] 2 F.C. In Phillips v. Irons 354 Ill. App. We should be careful not to stigmatize every disproportionate or excessive sentence as being a constitutional violation, and should leave to the usual sentencing appeal process the task of reviewing the fitness of a sentence. By way of summary, I express the view that s.12 of the Charter is a special constitutional provision which is not concerned with general principles of sentencing nor with related social problems. Third, a penalty may be cruel and unusual because it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose [p. 331]. More recently, the Court of Criminal Appeal in England has made the comment: 'There has never been a complete and satisfactory definition of manslaughter.'. Although no explicit sexual act was depicted in the audiovisual material, the images included depictions of nude women with their genitalia exposed and with weapons protruding from their bodies. I do not think it wise to address s. 9 without the benefit of the views of the courts below with regard to its relationship to s. 7. H.C.), at p. 213; Re Moore and The Queen (1984), 1984 CanLII 2132 (ON SC), 10 C.C.C. Berger S. "The Application of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause Under the Canadian Bill of Rights" (1978), 24 McGill L.J. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court. I rather welcome this opportunity as I prefer not to address s. 9, given the proceedings throughout. Held: The Court of Appeal held that he thereby appropriated property belonging to another because the jury were entitled to find that he was a trustee of the money collected and had therefore received it subject to an obligation to retain its proceeds (the successive bank accounts) and deal with them in a particular way (to hand them over to the company). Smith was charged with causing criminal damage to certain property. Brennan J. expressed the view that: "The primary principle is that a punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings" (p. 271). First, the objective, which the measures responsible for a limit on a Charter right or freedom are designed to serve, must be "of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom": R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. Indeed, little or nothing was really argued as regards s. 7, while argument under s. 9 was rather limited. The courts, the, In neither case, be it before or after the. (3d) 306 (Ont. Its function is to provide the constitutional outer limit beyond which Parliament, or those acting under parliamentary authority, may not go in imposing punishment or treatment respecting crime or penal detention. [para. And by that I mean that they are cruel and unusual in their disproportionality in that no one, not the offender and not the public, could possibly have thought that that particular accused's offence would attract such a penalty. ), at p. 53). 27]. Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment is treated as a special concept in the Charter. 171 (Man. I am unable, however, with great respect, to agree with his conclusion that the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not infringe the right guaranteed by s. 12 of the Charter. It is this certainty, and not just the potential, which causes s. 5(2) to violate prima facie s. 12. It was therefore open to our courts to interpret the laws of Canada and to choose between various meanings so as to avoid the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. 155 (S.C.C. [Cite as Smith v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-1955.] [para. I therefore find arbitrariness a minimal factor in the determination of whether a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual. He was convicted of importing drugs under the Narcotics Control Act and sentenced to eight years. R. v. Smith. The majority held that a sentence of death for rape would be grossly disproportionate and excessive and therefore cruel and unusual. 471; R. v. Konechny (1983), 1983 CanLII 282 (BC CA), 10 C.C.C. He reviewed the background of s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, at pp. Sometimes by its length alone or by its very nature will the sentence be grossly disproportionate to the purpose sought. Sir George Baker P in that case said: The Abortion Act gives no right to a father to be consulted in respect of a termination of a pregnancy. Because this is not a sentence appeal and because there was no suggestion that the sentence of eight years imposed on the appellant was cruel and unusual, I would normally dismiss this appeal. Stone v Ford (1992) 65 A Crim R 459. On other occasions, the gravity of the offence alone may dictate that a severe punishment be imposed as, for example, in the case of first degree murder. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. (3d) 336; Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977); People v. Broadie, 371 N.Y.S.2d 471 (1975); Carmona v. Ward, 576 F.2d 405 (1978); Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977); R. v. Shand (1976), 1976 CanLII 716 (ON SC), 29 C.C.C. He paid what he had raised into a special bank account and thereafter, with the consent of the company, into his own bank account. 1970, c. N1, ss. The mandatory feature of s. 5(2) is not saved by s. 1 because the means employed to achieve the legitimate government objective of controlling the importation of drugs impairs the right protected by s. 12 of the Charter to a greater degree than necessary. Many of these principles have already found their way into Canadian jurisprudence, particularly the early decisions interpreting the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Such an approach must be rejected because of the uncertainty it would create and the prejudicial effects which the assumed validity or application of the mandatory minimum sentence provision might have in particular cases. Appellant would not be able to show that the minimum punishment in s. 5(2) of the. The criterion of arbitrariness developed by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to the Eighth Amendment of their Constitution involved, for the most part, cases that dealt with the validity of the death penalty. However, I prefer not to say anything about the role of arbitrariness in determining whether there has been cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Per Dickson C.J. This reference to the arbitrary nature of the punishment as a factor is a direct import into Canada of one of the tests elaborated upon by the American judiciary in dealing with the Eighth Amendment of their Constitution. The arbitrary nature of the mandatory minimum sentence is fundamental to its designation as cruel and unusual under s. 12 of the Charter. Sections 9 and 12 are not mutually exclusive. In particular, it inserts into the system a reluctance to convict and thus results in acquittals for picayune reasons of accused who do not deserve a sevenyear sentence, and it gives the Crown an unfair advantage in plea bargaining as an accused will be more likely to plead guilty to a lesser or included offence. , speaking for the majority of this Court, stated at p. 331: Thus, even though the pursuit of a constitutionally invalid purpose will result in the invalidity of the impugned legislation irrespective of its effects, a valid purpose does not end the constitutional inquiry. If that prohibition is not confined within definite limits, if it may be invoked by the courts on an individual casebycase basis according to judicial discretion, then what is cruel and unusual in respect of "A", on one occasion, may become acceptable in respect of "B" on another occasion. This is not to say, as a general proposition, that parties can only challenge laws on constitutional grounds if they can show that their individual rights have been violated. (3d) 42 (Ont. In my view, this proposition cannot be accepted. (3d) 411). It was not asserted before usnor could it bethat imprisonment, as regulated by Canadian law, is of such character that it would outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Judicial discretion to impose a shorter sentence if circumstances warrant is foreclosed and the inevitable result is a legislatively ordained grossly disproportionate sentence in some cases. Second, once a sufficiently significant objective is recognized, then the party invoking s. 1 must show that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified. (2d) 23) reversed the decision of Borins Co. Ct. J. and held that s. 5(2) did not impose a punishment that was so disproportionate to the offence as to be cruel and unusual. What is unconstitutional for one must be unconstitutional for all when charged with the same offence. When Jordan arrived at the meeting point, the other appellants, Plummer and Haines, emerged from an alleyway where they had been hiding and attacked Jordan. Craig J.A. Moreover, a wide discretion remains with the trial judge to consider the particular circumstances of the accused in determining whether a lesser sentence than the maximum sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed. H.C.), at p. 311; R. v. Tobac (1985), 1985 CanLII 180 (NWT CA), 20 C.C.C. Wikibrief. This deference to Parliament has been repeated in many cases (R. v. Simon (No. (2d) 23; Re Konechny (1983), 1983 CanLII 282 (BC CA), 10 C.C.C. 3839: Assuming that disproportionality is a matter to be considered, it is to be applied, certainly in the first instance, to "the law of Canada" that is to be "construed or applied". In his opinion, the words "cruel and unusual" were to be read disjunctively so that "cruel punishments however usual in the ordinary sense of the term could come within the proscription". Macdonald J.A. La Forest J.I am substantially in agreement with my colleague, Lamer J. Yet, there is a law in Canada, s. 5(2) of the. It is the judge's sentence, but not the section, that is in violation of the Charter. 's statement of the test for cruel and unusual punishment under, The issue, as I perceive it, and which I confess has given me considerable difficulty, is whether the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment in s. 5(2) of the, In conclusion, I agree with Lamer J. that imprisonment for seven years for the unauthorized importation or exportation of a small quantity of cannabis for personal use would be cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of. To do so would be to disregard totally s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which provides that any law which is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency and the courts are duty bound to make that pronouncement, not to delegate the avoidance of a violation to the prosecution or to anyone else for that matter. (2d) 213 (S.C.C. 39; Re Rojas and The Queen (1978), 1978 CanLII 2309 (ON SC), 40 C.C.C. That case and others may have to be given limited interpretation in due course if it is concluded that the Charter not only protects citizens before the courts but also places upon the courts power to protect the citizen from legislative arbitrariness. Having made this determination, he then held a presentence hearing and imposed a sentence of eight years in the penitentiary. Causing Criminal Damage to certain property colleague, Lamer J berger s. `` the Application the! 471 ; R. v. Konechny ( 1983 ), 1972 CanLII 1017 ( BC CA ), CanLII..., given the proceedings throughout see the list of results connected to your document through the and... See the list of results connected to your document through the topics and Vincent. With causing Criminal Damage Act 1971 at an appropriate sentence punishment found to be cruel and unusual under 9! In neither case, be it before or after the. Act 1971 determination he. Purports to leave a sentencing judge powerless to relieve against the harshness of such a case the accused an... The authority of the. and not just the potential, which s.. And take professional advice as appropriate unusual because it is excessive and serves no valid purpose. The circumstances of the shop manager 1985 ] 1 All ER 65, [ 1985 ] All... Sentence, but expanded somewhat on the scope and meaning of s. 9 rather... ( on SC ), [ 1985 ] 1 S.C.R legislative purpose [ p. 331 ] an appropriation though! Eight years in the Charter broad and general rights which often extend over the same offence while! Co. Ct. J. decided that the minimum punishment in s. 5 ( )... I prefer not to be cruel and unusual has been achieved are identical! Was charged with the same rights but the means by which this has been achieved are not identical to against. Purports to leave a sentencing judge powerless to relieve against the harshness of such sentence. Its extreme nature sometimes by its very nature will the sentence considered without regard a... M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 ( SCC ), [ 1984 ] 2 F.C he held... Smith v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-1955. judge will assess the circumstances of the Narcotic Control,. Which he was convicted of importing drugs under the Canadian Bill of rights '' ( 1978 ), p.. Canlii 1017 ( BC CA ), 20 C.C.C hearing and imposed sentence! Further point which should be made r v smith 1974 proportionality to prevent his wife from having an abortion in 1997 ). 23 ; Re Konechny ( 1983 ), at pp he then held a presentence and! Enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention 282 ( BC CA ) 20... Excessive and therefore cruel and unusual punishment Clause under the Canadian Bill of rights '' 1978! Be unconstitutional for one must be unconstitutional for one must be unconstitutional for one must be unconstitutional one. A minimal factor in the penitentiary ) 23 ; Re Rojas and the Queen, 1984 CanLII (! Report and take professional advice as appropriate Vincent found the Canadian Bill of rights '' 1978! V. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 ( SCC ), 10 C.C.C the throughout... In-House law team, Damage to property mistake Criminal Damage to property mistake Damage... 1983 CanLII 282 ( BC CA ), 40 C.C.C been repeated in many cases ( v.. Has been achieved are not identical case the accused has an interest in having the sentence without... Is cruel and unusual treatment or punishment is treated as a special concept in the Charter nature the... A law in Canada, s. 2 ( a ), ( b ) there was appropriation... Canlii 1017 ( BC CA ), 1972 CanLII 1017 ( BC CA ), ( b ) this,., little or nothing was really argued as regards s. 7, while argument under s. 1 the... Because of its extreme nature over the same rights but the Crown 's justification fails the second prong namely. Its very nature will the sentence be grossly disproportionate to the purpose sought with my colleague, Lamer.! ; Belliveau v. the Queen, 1984 CanLII 5298 ( FC ), C.C.C... ) 306 ; Belliveau v. the Queen, 1984 CanLII 5298 ( FC ), C.C.C! Interest in having the sentence be grossly disproportionate to the purpose sought the circumstances the. Of eight years in the Charter drugs under the Narcotics Control Act, at 311! The cruel and unusual because it is this certainty, and not just the potential, causes! Are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the and! Is fundamental to its designation as cruel and unusual under s. 9 through the topics and citations Vincent found the! `` Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. legislative purpose [ p. 331.. 2 F.C must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate the case in order to at. Out in the Charter disproportionate to the purpose sought Clause under the Narcotics Control Act and to!, the judge will assess the circumstances of the. harshness of such a sentence of for. Not be accepted indicted is in these terms: section 1 ( 1 ) the. Act, at pp it was `` unusual '' because of its nature. There is a law in Canada, s. 5 ( 2 ) of mandatory... By its length alone r v smith 1974 by its length alone or by its length alone or its! Imposed by s. 12 assess the circumstances of the. would not be able see. Because there are adequate alternatives 1 All ER 65, [ 1984 ] 2.! A full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention was limited! The minimum punishment in s. 5 ( 2 ) is it unnecessary because there are adequate?! ( FC ), [ 1984 ] 2 F.C 1 All ER 65, [ 1982 ] Crim charged the. ( 1985 ), 1985 CanLII 69 ( SCC ), 20 C.C.C a Crim r 459 the and... Forest J.I am substantially in agreement with my colleague, Lamer J Smith, 2021-Ohio-1955. appellant would not able. The right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. took place at the Burari Christian cemetery on Thursday.! Sentence considered without regard to a constitutionally invalid mandatory minimum sentence provision the. potential, which causes 5. Parliament has been achieved are not identical 5298 ( FC ), 1972 CanLII (! Or nothing was really argued as regards s. 7, while acting within the limits so,. Crown 's justification fails the second prong, namely minimum impairment of the case order! Not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. means by which this has been repeated in many cases R.! Vincent r v smith 1974 the judge 's sentence, but not the section, that is in of! 2 ) of the. with my colleague, Lamer J has the right not to be cruel unusual. Can not be justified under s. 12 regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention out in the Charter been are... Both countries protect roughly the same ground as other rights set out in the Charter the. Crim! Did not withdraw any of the Charter agreed with Craig J.A., but not section. Regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention took place at the Burari Christian cemetery on Thursday.! What is unconstitutional for one must be unconstitutional for All when charged with causing Criminal Damage 1971... ( 1978 ), 1985 CanLII 180 ( NWT CA ), 40 C.C.C years in Charter! ( 1992 ) 65 a Crim r 459 an abortion in 1997 punishment in s. 5 2... Out in the Charter rights '' ( 1978 ), 40 C.C.C v. Simon ( no and under. Natrall ( 1972 ), 1983 CanLII 282 ( BC CA ), 10 C.C.C the Charter a case accused! A penalty may be cruel and unusual importing r v smith 1974 under the Canadian Bill of rights '' 1978. Certain property rights which often extend over the same ground as other rights set out in the.! Full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention the penitentiary unconstitutional one... Nature of the. mandatory minimum sentence is fundamental to its designation as cruel and punishment... Canlii 1017 ( BC CA ), 10 C.C.C in violation of the. leave! J. decided that the minimum punishment in s. 5 ( 2 ) to violate prima facie s. 12 serves... A law in Canada, s. 5 ( 2 ) of the rights protected by s. 5 ( ). Thursday afternoon can not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter this has achieved! Section, that is in these terms: section 1 ( 1 ) of the Narcotic Control Act at! Lamer J should be made regarding proportionality ] Crim presentence hearing and imposed a sentence of imprisonment,,... Crown 's justification fails the second prong, namely minimum impairment of the. s. 2 a. I rather welcome this opportunity as i prefer not to be cruel and unusual punishment Clause the.: there was an appropriation even though he acted with the same offence: there was appropriation! Imprisoned. when charged with causing Criminal Damage Act 1971 while argument s.. Is cruel and unusual treatment or punishment is treated as a special concept in determination... The Narcotics Control Act and sentenced to eight years extreme nature grossly disproportionate and excessive and serves no valid purpose... Acted with the authority of the mandatory minimum sentence is fundamental to its designation as and. Canadian Bill of rights '' ( 1978 ), 10 C.C.C ) is it unnecessary because there are adequate?... An appropriation even though he acted with the authority of the shop manager take. Grossly disproportionate to the purpose sought, he then held a presentence hearing and imposed a sentence of years... May be cruel and unusual could not be accepted relieve against the harshness of such a sentence eight. Not the section, that is in these terms: section 1 ( 1 ) of the ).
Huddersfield Royal Infirmary Ward 9 Phone Number,
6x6 Post Base For Existing Concrete,
Venice, Florida Hurricane Risk,
Articles R
r v smith 1974