Omnibus Crime Bill: Court Rules Mandatory Minimum Sentence Unconstitutional

Omnibus Crime Bill Mandatory Minimum Unconstitutio

First Posted: 02/13/2012 3:08 pm Updated: 02/13/2012 8:45 pm

TORONTO - Sending a first-time offender to prison for three years for possessing a loaded gun is "cruel and unusual punishment," an Ontario judge ruled Monday in striking down the mandatory minimum sentence as unconstitutional.

The decision comes at a time when the federal Conservative government is pushing ahead with its controversial tough-on-crime agenda, including new mandatory minimums for drug and child sex crimes.

The judgment is "directly contrary" to what is happening in Ottawa, said Dirk Derstine, the defence lawyer on this case.

"The whole question of the constitutionality of all of this sort of crime agenda is going to be very much challenged in the courts and this is maybe one small step in making it less constitutionally sound," he said.

It's possible to increase the severity of sentences for such crimes while allowing judges discretion to impose lesser sentences when the circumstances justify it, Ontario Superior Court Judge Anne Molloy wrote.

Some flexibility is needed in the sentencing regime, she found.

"Every reasonable person would support reducing violent crime and protecting the public," Molloy wrote. "However, there is no tangible evidence that imposing a mandatory minimum does anything to actually accomplish that objective."

Leroy Smickle was "very foolish" to have been taking pictures of himself posing with a loaded illegal gun, but the circumstances do not warrant a three-year penitentiary sentence, Molloy ruled.

"In my opinion, a reasonable person knowing the circumstances of this case...would consider a three-year sentence to be fundamentally unfair, outrageous, abhorrent and intolerable," she wrote.

Such a sentence would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," and violates the charter, Molloy found. She declared the section of the Criminal Code setting out a minimum three years' punishment to be "immediately" of no force and effect.

The Department of Justice had no comment, saying it was a provincial prosecution. The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General said it will review the decision to determine the province's next steps. A spokesman couldn't say whether the province will appeal.

Molloy found the Toronto man guilty of possession of a loaded firearm. He was sentenced to one year, to be served in the community.

"Mr. Smickle is guilty of colossally bad judgment," Molloy wrote. "However, apart from this one lapse in judgment, he is not a criminal."

Smickle was alone in his cousin's apartment at 2 a.m. on March 9, 2009, taking pictures of himself to post on his Facebook page. He was wearing boxer shorts, a white tank top and sunglasses and posing with a loaded handgun to look "cool," Molloy found.

Unbeknownst to him, members of the Toronto police Emergency Task Force were amassing outside to execute a search warrant in relation to Smickle's cousin, who they believed had illegal firearms.

Police smashed in the door of the apartment with a battering ram and Smickle was "literally caught red-handed," Molloy said.

The omnibus Bill C-10 — currently facing scrutiny in the Senate — combines nine different pieces of legislation, covering everything from drug and sex crimes to young offenders, criminal pardons and the issue of Canadians jailed abroad.

It creates new mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and child sex crimes, sharply reduces the use of house arrest, toughens the treatment of young offenders and those seeking criminal pardons, and gives the government new discretion on handling the cases of Canadians jailed outside the country.

Critics of the bill cite falling crime rates and say the cost of increased incarceration will be enormous, while rehabilitation and reintegration of convicts falls through the cracks.

Loading Slideshow...
  • Key Measures In Tory Crime Bill

    The bill, known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, includes the following measures: <em>With files from The Canadian Press</em> (CP/Alamy)

  • Child Sex Offences

    Heftier penalties for sexual offences against children. The bill also creates two new offences aimed at conduct that could facilitate or enable the commission of a sexual offence against a child. (MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Drugs

    Tougher sentences for the production and possession of illicit drugs for the purposes of trafficking. (NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Violent And Young Offenders

    Tougher penalties for violent and repeat young offenders. (JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Conditional Sentences

    An end to the use of conditional sentences, or house arrest, for serious and violent crimes (GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Parole Hearings

    Allowing victims to participate in parole hearings. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld)

  • Pardons

    Extending ineligibility periods for applications for pardons to five years from three for summary-conviction offences and to 10 years from five for indictable offences. (Flickr: haven't the slightest)

  • Transferring Canadian Offenders

    Expanding the criteria that the public safety minister can consider when deciding whether to allow the transfer of a Canadian offender back to Canada to serve a sentence. (JOEL ROBINE/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Terror Victims

    Allowing terrorism victims to sue terrorists and their supporters, including listed foreign states, for losses or damages resulting from an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world.(STRDEL/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Human Trafficking

    Measures to prevent human trafficking and exploitation. (LOUISA GOULIAMAKI/AFP/Getty Images)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA POLITICS

TORONTO - Sending a first-time offender to prison for three years for possessing a loaded gun is "cruel and unusual punishment," an Ontario judge ruled Monday in striking down the mandatory minimum se...
TORONTO - Sending a first-time offender to prison for three years for possessing a loaded gun is "cruel and unusual punishment," an Ontario judge ruled Monday in striking down the mandatory minimum se...
Filed by Daniel Tencer  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 134
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
11:28 PM on 02/14/2012
Awesome, I applaud this decision.

At least the courts, judges in this case have not been bought and paid for by the Corporations, Corporatists and Conservatives (yet), I sure hope it stays that way.

The poor, working poor, working and middle class have lousy lobbyists, unlike the wealthy who have the best that money can buy.
04:24 PM on 02/14/2012
"Leroy Smickle was "very foolish" to have been taking pictures of himself posing with a loaded illegal gun," since everyone seems to be against punishing him how do we reward him? we should wait until he shoots someone then lock him up; then of course the dated pictures would come out showing him with the illegal gun the year before and everyone would be shouting 'you knew! why didn't you arrest him then'
photo
Bumpers car
Fish till you die
04:05 PM on 02/14/2012
There are some weapon charges that honestly do deseve minimum sentences. I really have a hard time believing this is one of them. This is something that should be featured on "America's dumbest stunts" and proves again that legislation and law cannot regulate pure stupidity. So the cousin is a gang banger, so what. the offence is not one that deserves 3 years in the clinck. Would a kid from a home where guns were legally housed get 3 years for posing the same way with a father's weapon? Unless there is "intent" to misuse or harm then give him a fine, charge him with careless display or careless storage but 3 years for this is a bit much on a first offence.
02:57 PM on 02/14/2012
Let's see now with this Omnibus Crime Bill! Have a mandatory minimum sentence for everything no matter how trivial. Objective in my view? Pack the Jails and Corrections Institutions to capicity and overflows. Then the same Government that arrange this situation, begins to lobby for more capacity for which they have no money to contribute to a solution. So? Let the private sector find a solution. Bam! We now have For-Profit Prisons. With the Justice System creating more and more convicts, we will then create more and more mega prisons. Who will be incarcerated continuously? Check the imported template from south of the 49th parallel. That's where we are heading. Complement of ''A Stable Majority Government''.
01:28 PM on 02/14/2012
This shows the absurdity of US based "zero tolerance" models which, by taking away discretion, eliminate the rule of law. Hopefully it will be a few years before the Harper regime can undermine judicial independence to the point a yankee style police state can be created.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
cinemaven
Follow me on Twitter :)
12:06 PM on 02/14/2012
Sentencing should be logical and sensible. Judges should be evaluated by their decisions.

One of my closest friends served on the Ontario Parole Board for years and it shocked her at the number of serious molesters who were serving provincial sentences for 3rd and 5th offences against young children next to first time drug offenders who were holding barely over the personal amount of drugs. There are several judges in Ontario who don't take offences against children seriously and there are some judges who are insanely strict against drug offenders.

If you are charged and found guilty of a crime, your punishment should be comparable to anyone else who is sentenced, it shouldn't be common knowledge that if you are an offender against women or children that X judge will go easier on you. No one should be in the provincial system (2 years less a day) when they were convicted of their 5th crime against children.

Minimum sentencing shouldn't be the way to keep judges in line, there should be more checks and balances and common sense!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
valar84
09:08 AM on 02/14/2012
By definition, mandatory minimum sentencing does nothing to address the real hardened criminals and to punish severe crimes. People who commit severe crimes are already punished more than that, they're not affected.

The only ones that mandatory minimum sentencing affect are those who made minor versions of crimes, with no malice in general.

What do people think, that when someone is declared guilty the judge rolls dice to determine sentence time? That there is a "wheel of jail" that is spun? No, they do it based on guidelines and the severity of the offense.

The 20-year old guy who sleeps with a mature looking 15-year old who illegally entered a bar (so he presumes she's 18). The kid who gets bullied into keeping a gun for his brother who is in a gang for a while. The guy who is bringing weed to his friends at a party. Those are the people who suffer from mandatory minimum sentencing. NOT the gang member who shoots and kills people who didn't pay their debts. NOT the 40-year old pedophile luring young girls to rape them. NOT the mafia leaders who manage cocaine importation and distribution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Russg
09:53 AM on 02/14/2012
The Neocons would rather demagogue the issue than debate reasonably.
12:03 PM on 02/14/2012
Apparently if we have reservations about the draconian impacts of this bill, we're on the side of "Child Pornographers". Intellectually disonest as always, these Conservatives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:18 PM on 02/14/2012
Lets see - I have posted two opinions with logic - you have posted none and only flung an unsubstaniated insult - who's acting like a demagogue? Typical loony left rant, lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:36 AM on 02/14/2012
"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing."

The bar owner should have done something. The guy should have asked. The kid should have refused. The guy with weed is guilty and spreading lawlessness. They suffer but so too to their victims.

The 15 year old who as a minor is not responsible yet, her life is hurt. The person who may be shot because the police can't find the gun, an innocent victim impacted. The person who uses weed and then progresses to really dangerous stuff, possible overdoses. These are the people who are the real victims.

To think otherwise is undemocratic and an affront to our freedom. If you think any of these things is OK for our society; sex with 15 year olds, keeping guns for others, smoking pot then you need to convince enough people to get the law changed. Fortunately, in my opinion, the majority prefer safety and support of victims to chaos and "everyone for themselves" in Canadian society.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
valar84
12:41 PM on 02/14/2012
Of course, in all the cases I described, people did things wrong, but that's not the question. The question is, do all of these people deserve years in jail as the mandatory minimum sentencing laws would have it? Of course not. There is no reason to send them to jail, to ruin their lives for these offenses. They had no malice, they weren't spreading evil, they made simple mistakes with minimal, if not no, consequence. At most, give them community service, fines or the like. Punishments proportional to the crime.

Your party (CP for Conservative party I presume) would have it otherwise. Would ruin their lives for no good reason. This is evil. Yes, the law can be evil sometimes, and when it ruins the lives of innocents because of adherence to the letter of laws that ignore the context of the crimes and their severity, it IS evil.

We know by evidence that harsh sentencing doesn't help. In fact, it makes things worse. The people you send to jail for ridiculous lapses of judgments without effect on others will be changed by the experience, and not for the better. They will not find a good place in society and will become anti-social types. A self-fulfilling prophecy, because they are mistreated as people believe them to be bad people, they become bad people, when they would be good if treated fairly.
02:07 PM on 02/14/2012
Future hypothetical scenarios where someone might get harmed are a basis for criminal legislation now? I'd love to see you apply that logic to the gun registry. Then we'd have a reason for banning all guns. And unlike with weed, the guns themselves are dangerous, not the fantasy that it's some "gateway" to rocket launchers and bombs that might get acquired later.

Any kind of law needs to be sensible and effective. If you pass laws to reduce crime, they should make the crime rate lower. The conservative's mandatory minimums laws will exacerbate the problems they're trying to address. There is zero evidence, anywhere on the planet that the strategy they're using has any positive effect at all. Even texas is running away from it as fast as they can. I can't really believe I have to point that out, but that's literally the point we've reached in this country.

As a footnote, even the Conservative's own "Victim's ombudsman" who they hand-picked to push their agenda couldn't stay silent on the hypocrisy of killing the gun registry at the same time as they ram this unwelcome criminal legislation down the throats of canadians. http://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/media/news-nouv/nr-cp/2011/20111025.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:37 AM on 02/14/2012
The arguments here show why I am so pessimistic for the human race and why we should never allow the left back into power in Canada. TM, inbred hillbilly logic, dime store lawyers on the constitution, ad hominem lefty attacks etc.

So a 30year old guy hangs out at a known criminal's house and plays with a gun while he leaves his wife and kid somewhere else. If you think this guy is innocent I have a piece of swamp to sell you. He should get three years just for being a total moron even if you believe his story.

This judge acted politically not as a judge of justice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quax
11:07 AM on 02/14/2012
Oh my god he left "his wife and kid somewhere else"! Just imagine: They may have been at home watching TV - that is just horrendous.

And what business did he have visiting his cousin in the first place? Clearly the man deserves three years in prison. After all he left "his wife and kid somewhere else"!

How much does your piece of swamp go for?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephane Gaudette
07:04 AM on 02/15/2012
you're a D00che
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robertmiller252
06:59 AM on 02/14/2012
When you give judges powers, they become demigods.

I went to court to sue someone. The judge ruled that I was entitled to claims A, B and C and said the amount was X amount of dollars.

When I pointed out that A, B and C actually amounted to a higher figure, he banged his gavel and cut the award in half.

He obviously didn't appreciate being told that he couldn't add.

Now move that rational to murder, rape, gun laws, etc., and you have the potential for chaos. And a forum for the bleeding hearts.
07:43 AM on 02/14/2012
---maybe the problem is you
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robertmiller252
08:37 AM on 02/14/2012
Just explain to me how that became my problem?
09:01 AM on 02/14/2012
That's a rather ignorant and sweeping statement. Judges are one of the checks and balances for our system of democracy. If they were not there then any majority government could pass whatever it wanted without scrutiny.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robertmiller252
10:46 AM on 02/14/2012
You mean it was ignorant for me to suggest he couldn't add?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gravescanada
06:47 AM on 02/14/2012
I have a younger brother, Jimmy. When he was 19 he went to a party. He got drunk and passed out. While he was asleep on the couch at the party a girl initiated and had sex with him. Later the girls parents read her journal, and found out she had sex with this Jim guy who as I said was 19. She was 15, just a month shy of 16. Perfectly legal here in Canada, but in Missouri it is Statutory Rape. Out of fear, my brother took a plea bargain. One week before his probation was to end, he and his girlfriend were at a bar and the owner was trying to get Jim's girlfriend to have sex for drugs. My brother tried to stop it, but the bouncer kicked him out. He called the sheriffs office and reported what was happening. What he did not know was the Sheriff was the brother of the bar owner, so Jim got charged with trespassing when he went back in to get her out of the bar. This violated his probation and due to minimum sentencing, my brother Jimmy has spent the last 7 years in state prison. There was no justice that day. Do we want this type of prosecution here in Canada?
09:35 AM on 02/14/2012
That's terrifying. I'm really sorry for your brother. A lot of these laws seems to have the goal of criminalizing youth - it's not like there's any new criminal sentences against a 50-year old boss pressuring an 18 year old employee into sleeping with him.

The worst part is they throw around these, "One year, two year, etc..." sentences as if they were nothing, without realizing that one year in jail will have a huge impact on someone's life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gravescanada
09:54 AM on 02/14/2012
He actually turned down Parole and is serving the full sentence so that, upon release he is free. No probation officer to jerk him around, no employer to take advantage of him. One of the saddest things I have ever experienced was working at a plant called GW Fiberglass. It was based out of O'Fallon MO. They hired ex cons on probation, and if the ex con did not do whatever they told them to do, they could get their probation revoked. To me it was slave labor. This is typical in many states in the USA as the Prisons have become a multifaceted business with Prosecutors and Judges having part ownership of the Private Prison Facilities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gravescanada
06:41 AM on 02/14/2012
The did Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in the USA. All it did was pack the prison with non violent offenders, who, being incarcerated with long time offenders, came out of the prisons buffed up, violent and a very real menace to society. Punishment must come hand in hand with rehabilitation. If you take everything away from a man, lock him away for several years, he comes out hateful and bitter. That is what we DO NOT WANT in Canada. Revenge is not justice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Runey
religion is why we can't have nice things.
08:53 AM on 02/14/2012
it's very true. ALL successful research and drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences. In this case at least, the Judge was the hero.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robertmiller252
06:37 AM on 02/14/2012
There we go again. Radical judges who think that they have the right to make laws.

It is our elected representatives who make our laws, not our appointed judges who no allegiance to anyone except their political masters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
djelimon17
what's this thing for?
08:05 AM on 02/14/2012
If you don't like the constitution, get it changed the proper way.

Tje provision against cruel and unusual punishment is one if the things separating Canada from despotic regimes
08:07 AM on 02/14/2012
What part do you not understand. This is a judge applying the constitution which IS the law and protects you and me from fascists and demogogues like Harper and his minions.
06:22 AM on 02/14/2012
righties are a confusing lot --

on the one hand they support the NRA ---like we have a right to bear arms amendment -----

and on the other they chastize a judge who lets one of their own off "easy"
06:15 AM on 02/14/2012
The crime rate in Canada last year dropped to its lowest level in 38 years, according to Statistics Canada. Let's keep the focus on introducing effective methods of rehabilitation, such as Transcendental Meditation, rather than increasing the cruel punishment of prison.
06:10 AM on 02/14/2012
"In my opinion, a reasonable person knowing the circumstances of this case...would consider a three-year sentence to be fundamentally unfair, outrageous, abhorrent and intolerable," she wrote.

but it is ideologically sound ----it is what righties are all about.---ideology
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hjorlejf
07:44 AM on 02/14/2012
and money.