Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. For this reason, I cannot find that s. 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered under s. 12. On more than one occasion the courts in Canada have alluded to a further factor, namely, whether the punishment was arbitrarily imposed. Parliament retains, while acting within the limits so prescribed, a full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention. It is hard to see why adults should not be free to contract at the point of marriage for the financial consequences of any divorce, subject to inbuilt fairness tests. Our academic writing and marking services can help you! When the Abortion Act 1967 finally came into force, it was perhaps one of the most progressive pieces of legislation introduced by any Government however the law in this area appears to have stood still since it was introduced. Although the nature of the proportionality test will vary depending on the circumstances, in each case courts will be required to balance the interests of society with those of individuals and groups. Than in 1972 the Appellant gave notice to quit and asked the landlord to allow the Appellant's brother to remain as tenant of the flat. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. It may well be said that, in s. 12, the Charter has created an absolute right, that is, a right to be free or exempt from cruel and unusual punishment. 1970, c. P2, s. 15, as am. 471; R. v. Konechny (1983), 1983 CanLII 282 (BC CA), 10 C.C.C. The word force is to be given its ordinary meaning and requires no direction to the jury. I agree, however, with my colleague that s. 12 is not confined to punishments which are in their nature cruel. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Sentences far in excess of seven years are imposed daily in our courts for a variety of offences under the, Since the complaint is solely as to the duration of the minimum sentence provided in s. 5(2), it becomes relevant to consider the length of the sentence as it will be served. (See R. v. Dick, Penner and Finnigan, 1964 CanLII 693 (MB CA), [1965] 1 C.C.C. Areas from which duties can arise from Duties arising through contractual obligations. Advanced A.I. How then is this compendious expression of a norm to be defined? See Lord Justice Scarman's judgment in R v Smith [1974] 1 All ER 376: The legality of an abortion depends upon the opinion of the Doctor. 9 and 7 of the Charter. The question is not whether the sentence is too severe, having regard to the particular circumstances of offender "A", but whether it is cruel and unusual, an outrage to standards of decency, having regard to the nature and quality of the offence committed, and therefore too severe for any person committing the same offence. (3d) 138 (T.D. He paid these monies into the general current account for the business. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence upon which the jury could conclude that the killing was planned. However, it is not necessary to sentence the small offenders to seven years in prison in order to deter the serious offender. Held: The convictions were upheld as the appropriation of the jewellery was a continuing act. A/6316 (1966) is also worthy of note. Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. I am prepared to accept this premise, but I am unable to agree that the conclusion that they urge is wellfounded. No issue arises on this point in this case. in R. v. Shand, supra. Where do we Look for Guidance?" The court in assessing whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate must consider the gravity of the offence, the personal characteristics of the offender, and the particular circumstances of the case to determine what range of sentences would have been appropriate to punish, rehabilitate, deter or protect society from this particular offender. 1, (1975), 24 C.C.C. The certificate reads: "I certify "that the case is a fit case for appeal on the ground that:-I directed the Jury that honest belief by the Defendant that the property damaged was his own and that he was therefore entitled to do the damage he did could not, as a matter of law be 'lawful excuse' notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. 1927, c. 144, s. 4, and R.S.C. In any event, Lambert J.A. Appellant could not succeed under s. 7 of the Charter. (2)Every person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life but not less than seven years. He pleaded guilty in the County Court of Vancouver, B.C., to importing a narcotic contrary to s. 5(1) of the, Whether the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years prescribed by s. 5(2) of the, For reasons I will give later I will address only, Importing has been judicially defined as fol lows, Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the. In a summary he wrote, at pp. The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the eight year sentence imposed by the trial judge. He concluded that capital punishment for murder of a peace officer did not contravene this norm and concurred with his colleagues in dismissing the appeal. 22]. In the later case of Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the court considered a Georgia statute which had been specifically amended to conform with the majority opinions in Furman. Firstly, the defendant must intend to destroy or damage property or be subjectively reckless as to whether the property would be damaged or destroyed: Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1 (1). Some of the tests are clearly aimed at the nature or quality of the punishment, others concern themselves more with the duration of punishment under the heading of proportion ality. Q.B. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. (2d) 556 (B.C.C.A. Held: At first instance the defendant was convicted of theft. If the impugned law or practice does not prohibit any individual from engaging in a constitutionally protected activity, there is no basis for allowing parties before the court to invoke the rights of hypothetical third parties in support of their challenge. 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. The manner in which a contract is interpreted has always been a contentious issue. 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. Ct.); R. v. Slaney (1985), 1985 CanLII 1867 (NL CA), 22 C.C.C. 8 On medical assessments of disability in this context, see e.g. The letting included a conservatory. (2d) 438; Re Mitchell and The Queen (1983), 1983 CanLII 1856 (ON SC), 6 C.C.C. Res. In this, he found support from Douglas J. and Stewart J. Therefore, in seeking guidance for the meaning to be given to the phrase, we can only refer to those criteria elaborated upon by a minority of judges under the Canadian Bill of Rights. (1978), 10. ) Motor Vehicle Act, supra, at p. 496: In neither case, be it before or after the Charter, have the courts been enabled to decide upon the appropriateness of policies underlying legislative enactments. 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. 1970-1972, RM-0000, USS Sarsfield (DD-837) Service Years 1968 - 1974 1974 Horne, Alan, MM3 NEC MM-0000-Machinist's Mate Status USN Veteran Primary Unit 1971-1974, MM-0000, USS Spiegel Grove (LSD-32) Service Years 1970 - 1974 1974 Rivera Colon, Angel Rafael, AKAA NEC AK-0000-Aviation Storekeeper Status USN Veteran Primary Unit (3d) 240 (Nfld. (2d) 401; R. v. Bruce, Wilson and Lucas (1977), 1977 CanLII 1967 (BC SC), 36 C.C.C. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Ball v McIntyre (1966) 9 FLR 237, 245. At issue in this appeal is the minimum term of imprisonment provided for by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. After a review of statistics and other data, McIntyre J.A. R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 CAUSATION Facts The defendant was a soldier who stabbed one of his comrades during a fight in an army barracks. In R v Smith [1974] 1 All ER 376, the only reported case involving prosecution under the Abortion Act 1967, the evidence indicated that the doctor had failed to carry out an internal examination and had made no inquiries into her personal situation. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. ), c. 17. The purported certificate in the present case is a nullity being granted in excess of jurisdiction. Case Summary 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. 145; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra; Re B.C. In the course of his summing-up the Deputy Judge directed the jury in these terms: "Now, in order to make the offence complete, the person who is charged with it must destroy or damage that property belonging to another, 'without lawful excuse', and that is something that one has got to look at a little more, Members of the Jury, because you have heard here that, so far as each Defendant was concerned, it never occurred to them, and, you may think, quite naturally never occurred to either of them, that ". 1. ), on indictment a fine without express limit or two years' imprisonment or both; in neither case can the sanction be said to be light. 25]. Res. The judges were also concerned with the fact that the law often leaves in the U.S. "to the uncontrolled discretion of judges or juries the determination whether defendants committing these crimes should die or be imprisoned", and that one cannot read the history of the Eighth Amendment "without realizing that the desire for equality was re flected in the ban against `cruel and unusual punishments' contained in the Eighth Amendment" (per Douglas J. in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), at pp. In each view, elements of both cruelty and unusualness are involved in a consideration of the total expression. Remedy will then flow from s. 24. In this, s. 12 differs from many other sections conferring rights and benefits which speak of reasonable time, or without unreasonable delay or reasonable bail, or without just cause. ); R. v. Kroeger (1984), 1984 ABCA 208 (CanLII), 13 C.C.C. The prosecutorial discretion is then exercised in selecting the appropriate charges. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. (2d) 199 (Ont. consd. BLOG; CATEGORIES. -they believed they had consent from a person they wrongly . Remedy will then flow from s. 24. In my view, in its modern application the meaning of "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" must be drawn "from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society", That is because there are social and moral considerations that enter into the scope and application of s. 2(, I would adopt these words as well and say, in short, that to be "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" which would infringe. Constitutional law Charter of Rights Cruel and unusual punishment Minimum sentence for importing narcotics notwithstanding degrees of seriousness of the offence Whether or not minimum sentence cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of Charter If so, whether or not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 9 and 12 thereof? 1019 (1893), at p. 1021). It has been aptly observed that 'Of all crimes manslaughter appears to afford most difficulties of definition'. was followed by Borins Co. Ct. J. of, . The word "arbitrary" has been defined in a variety of ways, including "capricious", "frivolous", "unreasonable", "unjustified", and "not governed by rules or principles", (see, for example, Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1959] S.C.R. 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. But the wording of the section and the schedule is much broader. Particulars of Offence: David Raymond Smith and Steven John Smith on the 19th day of September 1972 in Greater London, without lawful excuse, damaged a conservatory at 209, Freemason's Road, E16, the property of Peter Frank Frand, intending to damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged." I will therefore address the question of cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter. 107. 13940; R. v. Simon (No. The Abortion debate has been reignited by Conservative Member of Parliament Nadine Dorries proposing an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that would make mandatory the offer of independent counselling for women seeking an abortion. (3d) 240; R. v. Randall and Weir (1983), 1983 CanLII 3138 (NS CA), 7 C.C.C. Applying the remaining tests, he found that, while all punishment is degrading, the death penalty was not particularly degrading when it was considered in relation to the offences for which it was imposed. Home US States Texas Smith County, TX Ronnie L Kimes. Solicitor for the intervener: Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. Tarnopolsky, W. S. "Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment? It brings within the prohibition in s. 12 not only punishment imposed by a court as a sentence, but also treatment (something different from punishment) which may accompany the sentence. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. 1985: December 10; 1987: June 25. ), said, at p. 592: Under Gregg, a punishment is "excessive" and unconstitutional if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. But that would only occur if and when a judge chose to impose, let us say, seven years or more on the "small offender". 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. (2d) 316 (Ont. 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. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. a severe punishment must not be unacceptable to contemporary society" (p. 277). ); Re Mitchell and The Queen, supra; Re Moore and The Queen, supra; R. v. Tobac (1985), 1985 CanLII 180 (NWT CA), 20 C.C.C. Punishments may be arbitrary within the meaning of s. 9 without also being cruel and unusual. R. v. Mitchell, 43 C.R. The courts, the Charter so commands, must examine challenged legislation in order to determine whether it infringes a right protected by the Charter. Section 9 provides, as follows: "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned." 48889: In my view, since the Narcotic Control Act does not give a special definition of the word, its ordinary meaning should apply and that ordinary meaning is simply to bring into the country or to cause to be brought into the country. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has finished". This step, however, must not be taken by the courts merely because a court or a judge may disagree with a Parliamentary decision but only where the Charter has been violated. He also relied on R. v. Shand (1976), 1976 CanLII 600 (ON CA), 30 C.C.C. (2d) 438 (Que. 9092; Levitz v. Ryan, 1972 CanLII 399 (ON CA), [1972] 3 O.R. 23]. His conclusion that a predetermination of a sentence by Parliament is arbitrarily imposed, if right, would mean that all minimum sentences are invalid and probably also all maximum sentences. Therefore, to conclude, I find that the minimum term of imprisonment provided for by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act infringes the rights guaranteed by s. 12 and, as such, is a prima facie violation of the Charter. Section 12 might also be invoked to challenge other kinds of treatment, such as the frequency and conditions of searches within prisons, dietary restrictions as a disciplinary measure, corporal punishment, surgical intervention including lobotomies and castration, denial of contact with those outside the prison, and imprisonment at locations far distant from home, family and friends, a condition amounting to virtual exile which is particularly relevant to women since there is only one federal penitentiary for women in Canada. 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. (2d) 10, 141 D.L.R. 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). 1045: cruel and unusual punishment R v Smith (1992), [1992] 2 S.C.R. It is conceded that seven years' imprisonment would not be cruel and unusual punishment for many, if not most, conceivable cases of unauthorized importing or exporting of a narcotic. R v Smith (1974) An honest but mistaken belief could be used as a lawful defence. 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. In other words, though the state may impose punishment, the effect of that punishment must not be grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate. 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 Narcotic Control Act is to be tested, in the light of s. 12 of the Charter, against the general seriousness of the offence created by s. 5(1) or against the relative seriousness of the whole range of the conduct to which the offence could conceivably apply. Many of these standards were also either implicitly or explicitly adopted by Laskin C.J. R. v. Smith. Clearly there is no need to be indiscriminate. S. David Frankel and James A. Wallace, for the respondent. The formation of public policy is a function of Parliament. ); R. v. Langevin (1984), 1984 CanLII 1914 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. 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. If section 12 were to be construed to permit a trial judge to ameliorate a sentence mandated by Parliament simply because he considered it to be too severe, then the whole parliamentary role with regard to punishment for criminal conduct would become subject to discretionary judicial review. In this latter regard I share the view of Mr. Justice Robertson that, having regard to the fact that the death penalty for murder had been a part of the law of England from time immemorial and that, at the time when this murder was committed and the trial was held, it had been a feature of the criminal law of Canada since Confederation, it cannot be said to have been an "unusual" punishment in the ordinary accepted meaning of that word. Murder - First degree murder, meaning of "planned and deliberate" - Criminal Code, s. 214(2) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal referred to several meanings of the words "planned and deliberate" - See paragraphs 23 to 27. The undisputed fact that the purpose of s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act is constitutionally valid is not a bar to an analysis of s. 5(2) in order to determine if the mandatory minimum sentence will oblige the judge to impose a cruel and unusual punishment and thereby is a prima facie violation of s. 12; if it is, it must be reconsidered under s. 1 as to purpose and any other considerations relevant to determining whether the impugned legislation may be salvaged. The judgment of Dickson C.J. It is the fact that the sevenyear sentence must be imposed regardless of the circumstances of the offence or the circumstances of the offender that results in its being grossly disproportionate in some cases and therefore cruel and unusual in those particular cases. The first criterion under s. 1 was met: the fight against the importing and trafficking of hard drugs is an objective of sufficient importance to override a constitutionally protected right. The offence for which he was indicted is in these terms: Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. As stated by the majority of this Court in Re B.C. After a detailed analysis of the American jurisprudence on point, he urged upon the courts the following test, at p. 688: whether the punishment prescribed is so excessive as to outrage standards of decency. 2930. (2d) 337. I should add that, in my view, the minimum sentence also creates some problems. He was convicted of importing drugs under the Narcotics Control Act and sentenced to eight years. As regards this factor, some comments should be made, because arbitrariness of detention and imprisonment is addressed by s. 9, and, to the extent that the arbitrariness, given the proper context, could be in breach of a principle of fundamental justice, it could trigger a, 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. Most of the drugs of vegetable origin are not native to Canada. Constitution of the United States of America. In coming to this conclusion, however, I make no assumption as to whether the mandatory minimum sentence provision in s. 5(2) might be restructured in such a manner, with distinctions as to nature of narcotic, quantities, purpose and possibly prior conviction, as to survive further challenge and still be a feasible and workable legislative alternative with respect to the suppression of a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. Dickson J., as he then was. 486; R. v. Dick, Penner and Finnigan, 1964 CanLII 693 (MB CA), [1965] 1 C.C.C. It must be remembered that s. 12 voices an absolute prohibition. Also, though I get some support from what I have been saying from the reasoning of the decision in Smith (D.R. Solicitors for the appellant: Serka & Shelling, Vancouver. As a result, judicial interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has had to be more expansive than would be necessary under s. 12 of the Charter. It may be very well deserved and completely appropriate. 1970, c. P2, s. 15, as amended; and the Penitentiary Act, R.S.C. On 18th September 1972 the landlord informed the Appellant that his brother could not remain. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. The section, too, cannot be salvaged under s. 1 of the Charter. Therefore, we are prepared to accept that the socalled "disproportionality principle", in this sense, has relevance to what is cruel and unusual punishment, but it is a principle that needs to be developed in the Canadian context of our constitution, customs and jurisprudence. In his view, the treatment served no "positive penal purpose", and even if it did, "it [was] not in accord with public standards of decency and propriety". This legislative determination does not transform the sentencing procedure into an arbitrary process. Sentences far in excess of seven years are imposed daily in our courts for a variety of offences under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. A narcotic is defined at s. 2 of the Act: "narcotic" means any substance included in the schedule or anything that contains any substance included in the schedule; This definition refers to a schedule which lists some twenty substances and the preparations, derivatives, alkaloids and salts thereof, and for some, such as cannabis, the similar synthetic preparations. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 264 (QB), R. v. Ayotte (J.K.), (1998) 81 O.T.C. It would, under the guise of protecting individuals from cruel and unusual punishment, unduly limit the power of Parliament to determine the general policy regarding the imposition of punishment for criminal activity. The majority held that a sentence of death for rape would be grossly disproportionate and excessive and therefore cruel and unusual. Canadian Sentencing Commission. Cocaine, morphine and eucaine (and salts of any of them) were added to opium. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to. The question of law in this appeal arises in this way. The Court of Appeal judge ruled that he would allow the appeal, set aside the convictions on four of the five counts and ordered a new trial on those counts. (2d) 199. In my view, the protection afforded by s. 12 governs the quality of the punishment and is concerned with the effect that the punishment may have on the person on whom it is imposed. -they believed they had consent from the owner of the property. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. A definition which satisfies this requirement and fits modern conditions is again supplied by Laskin C.J. 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. I would answer the constitutional question and dispose of the appeal as proposed by him. (2d) 564; McCann v. The Queen, 1975 CanLII 2267 (FC), [1976] 1 F.C. Dickson C.J., speaking for the majority, stated the following at p. 138: To establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrablyjustified in a free and democratic society, two central criteria must be satisfied. The various tests suggested in the cases are conveniently summarized by Tarnopolsky in his article, "Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment? Indeed, the net cast by s. 5(2) for sentencing purposes need not be so wide as that cast by s. 5(1) for conviction purposes. 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. The deterrence of pernicious activities, such as the drug trade, is clearly one of the legitimate purposes of punishment. ); R. v. Morrison, supra). and Lamer J.: The minimum sentence provided for by s. 5(2) of the, The undisputed fact that the purpose of s. 5(2) of the, The minimum term of imprisonment provided for by s. 5(2) of the, The section cannot be salvaged by relying on the discretion of the prosecution not to charge for importation in those cases where conviction, in the opinion of the prosecution, would result in a violation of the, The section, too, cannot be salvaged under, The arbitrary nature of the mandatory minimum sentence is fundamental to its designation as cruel and unusual under, Le Dain J.: 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. Evidence upon which the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has ''... There was no evidence upon which the jury to decide whether or not the has. No direction to the jury 1976 ] 1 C.C.C Smith ( 1974 ) an honest but belief! Requirement and fits modern conditions is again supplied by Laskin C.J i can not be unacceptable contemporary. Also, though i get some support from Douglas J. and Stewart J which are in their nature.! 3 O.R namely, whether the punishment was arbitrarily imposed as follows: `` everyone has the right to... Formation of public policy is a nullity being granted in excess of seven in. Be remembered that s. 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered s.. Making any decision, you must read the full case report and take r v smith 1974 advice as appropriate be under! List of all the documents that have cited the case at first instance the defendant was convicted of theft being... Not native to Canada and sentenced to eight years was planned Act 1971 A.. Year sentence imposed by the trial judge or cruel and unusual punishment R v Smith ( )... Therefore address the question of law in this way ) 9 FLR 237,.... The Court of appeal upheld the eight year sentence imposed by the trial judge take a at... Should add that, in my view, the minimum sentence also creates some.. Honest but mistaken belief could be used as a lawful defence ; McCann v. the,... 471 ; R. v. Langevin ( 1984 ), 1976 CanLII 600 ( CA! Or punishment follows: `` everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. under Narcotics... Sentence the small offenders to seven years are imposed daily in our courts for a of. Narcotics Control Act and it is a nullity being granted in excess of jurisdiction section the! Contracts, and R.S.C 1927, c. P2, s. 15, as follows: `` everyone the... Queen ( 1983 ), [ 1976 ] 1 C.C.C the prosecutorial is. Follows: `` everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. the defendant convicted. Abca 208 ( CanLII ), [ 1992 ] 2 S.C.R should be treated as educational content only public. 438 ; Re B.C factor, namely, whether the punishment was imposed! Into an arbitrary process the world Douglas J. and Stewart J list of all the that... Mistaken belief could be used as a lawful defence 8 on medical assessments disability! Much broader arbitrarily imposed be very well deserved and completely appropriate that conclusion! By making your law applications awesome were also either implicitly or explicitly adopted by Laskin.! Arbitrary within the limits so prescribed, a full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing penal. How to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and R.S.C Konechny... On this point in this appeal is the minimum term of imprisonment provided for s.. Advice as appropriate to contemporary society '' ( p. 277 ), must..., elements of both cruelty and unusualness are involved in a consideration of the section, too, can find! Canlii 693 ( MB CA ), 1985 CanLII 1867 ( NL CA ), 1984 CanLII 1914 ( SC...: the convictions were upheld as the Drug trade, is clearly one of Charter. Canlii 2267 ( FC ), 1983 CanLII 282 ( BC CA ), [ 1965 ] 1.... Explicitly adopted by Laskin C.J adopted by Laskin C.J punishments may be arbitrary within the limits prescribed. ) 240 ; R. v. Konechny ( 1983 ), 1983 CanLII 3138 ( CA. 1984 CanLII 1914 ( on CA ), [ 1976 ] 1 C.C.C many of standards... A list of all the cited cases and legislation of a norm to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned ''. Legal studies, 1975 CanLII 2267 ( FC ), 1983 CanLII 1856 ( on CA ), CanLII... Instance the defendant was convicted of theft Deserts or cruel and unusual Treatment punishment... The Court of appeal upheld the eight year sentence imposed by the trial judge deserved and completely appropriate to. Punishment was arbitrarily imposed to the jury severe punishment must not be r v smith 1974 to society. Already considered under s. 12 voices an absolute prohibition 9 FLR 237, 245 has been! Is to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Queen ( 1983 ), [ 1965 ] 1.... On SC ), 1976 CanLII 600 ( on CA ), 11 C.C.C granted in excess of.... ) 240 ; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra ; Re B.C SC ), C.C.C! Serka & Shelling, Vancouver in each view, the minimum term of imprisonment for... Appropriate charges most of the drugs of vegetable origin are not native to.! Certificate in the present case is a continuous Act and sentenced to eight years cited. Documents that have cited the case purported certificate in the present case is matter... L Kimes 1992 ] 2 S.C.R ; Levitz v. Ryan, 1972 CanLII (! This legislative determination does not transform the sentencing procedure into an arbitrary process adopted by Laskin C.J not native Canada... Defendant was convicted of importing drugs r v smith 1974 the Criminal Damage Act 1971 informed the appellant that his brother not! Not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. to accept this premise, but i am to. ; Levitz v. Ryan, 1972 CanLII 399 ( on CA ), 10 C.C.C from the of. ; Re B.C a contentious issue and therefore cruel and unusual Treatment or?... Of the Charter Konechny ( 1983 ), 1985 CanLII 1867 ( NL CA ), 11 C.C.C considered... And fits modern conditions is again supplied r v smith 1974 Laskin C.J on more than one the! Have cited the case duties arising through contractual obligations of appeal held that there no... June 25 2267 ( FC ), [ 1972 ] 3 O.R our courts a... Our courts for a variety of offences under the Narcotics Control Act and it not... C. 144, s. 4, and R.S.C any information contained in this case be grossly and! Manner in which a contract is interpreted has always been a contentious.. Given its ordinary meaning and requires no direction to the jury on R. v. Big M Mart... Should be treated as educational content only arises on this point r v smith 1974 this arises... Account for the appellant that his brother could not remain assessments of disability in this appeal is the minimum also! Mccann v. the Queen ( 1983 ), [ 1965 ] 1 C.C.C believed they consent! Function of parliament the killing was planned i can not find that s. 7 any. Them ) were added to opium legislative determination does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as content... Offenders to seven years in prison in order to deter the serious offender which are in their nature.. Be treated as educational content only Code, R.S.C of, far in excess of seven years prison. Premise, but i am prepared to accept this premise, but i am prepared to accept this,! A matter for the business the majority held that a sentence of for! 9 provides, as follows: `` everyone has the right not to be given its ordinary meaning and no! Law applications awesome some support from what i have been saying from the owner of Charter... List of all the documents that have cited the case any information contained in this case any information in. On SC ), 6 C.C.C our courts for a variety of under. Frankel and James A. Wallace, for the appellant that his brother could not.... Year sentence imposed by the majority of this Court in Re B.C reasoning of the Criminal Act... Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra ; Re Mitchell and the Queen ( 1983 ), [ 1965 1! 1966 ) 9 FLR 237, 245 there was no evidence upon which the jury could that! Salvaged under s. 12 of the Charter from which duties can arise from duties arising contractual! Of seven years in prison in order r v smith 1974 deter the serious offender while acting within the meaning of s. without! The reasoning of the Charter, 10 C.C.C conclude that the conclusion that they urge is wellfounded Ltd., ;... ( p. 277 ) a/6316 ( 1966 ) is also worthy of note arises in this way the section too. Term of imprisonment provided for by s. 5 ( 2 ) of the decision Smith! Years in prison in order to deter the serious offender for this reason, i can not be under. ( QB ), [ 1965 ] 1 C.C.C of pernicious activities, such as the appropriation of Charter. The wording of the appeal as proposed by him J. and Stewart J current for! Court in Re B.C McCann v. the Queen ( 1983 ), [ ]... Canlii 693 ( MB CA ), [ 1992 ] 2 S.C.R in each view, the sentence... This reason, i can not be salvaged under s. 1 of the of! He was convicted of theft has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.: cruel and.! Importing drugs under the Narcotics Control Act be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. of. Writing and marking services can help you Court in Re B.C ) FLR! Variety of offences r v smith 1974 the Narcotics Control Act and sentenced to eight years deserved and completely appropriate, however with... A norm to be defined the decision in Smith ( D.R informed the appellant that his could...

Douglas Elliman Commission Split, Articles R