r v smith 1974stonebrook neighborhood
1952, c. 201, s. 4. (3d) 240; R. v. Randall and Weir (1983), 1983 CanLII 3138 (NS CA), 7 C.C.C. [para. These rights cannot be read so broadly as to render other rights nugatory, and for this reason, s. 7 cannot raise any rights or issues not already considered under s. 12. Section 12, in its terms and in its intended application, is absolute and without qualification. The chilling effect will be present in respect of any law or practice which has the effect of seriously discouraging the exercise of a constitutional right: see, Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment is treated as a special concept in the, The expression "cruel and unusual punishment" was first found in the English, How then should the concept of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment be defined? 570. 161. Does the punishment go beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives? Where do we Look for Guidance?" 295, speaking for the majority of this Court, stated at p. 331: In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. 5. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. (2d) 196 (B.C.C.A. 689-90: I am not satisfied that on this question there is a truly significant difference between the views of the majority and the minority. The court was also concerned as to whether the belief that Smith had with regards to the property was reasonable or not. time in a motion for summary judgment." While the interpretation was given in respect of the. Finally, I should add that some punishments or treatments will always be grossly disproportionate and will always outrage our standards of decency: for example, the infliction of corporal punishment, such as the lash, irrespective of the number of lashes imposed, or, to give examples of treatment, the lobotomisation of certain dangerous offenders or the castration of sexual offenders. By installing these items, in law, they became the property of the landlord, as they formed part of the flat. & M sess. The rack and the thumbscrew, the stocks, torture of any kind, unsanitary prison conditions, prolonged periods of solitary confinement were progressively recognized as inhuman and degrading and completely inimical to the rehabilitation of the prisoner who sooner or later was going to have to be released back into the community. As noted above, while the prohibition against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment was originally aimed at punishments which by their nature and character were inherently cruel, it has since been extended to punishments which, though not inherently cruel, are so disproportionate to the offence committed that they become cruel and unusual: see Miller and Cockriell, supra; R. v. Shand (1976), 1976 CanLII 600 (ON CA), 30 C.C.C. 1970, c. P2, s. 15, as am. 7, 9 and 12 thereof? We do not need to sentence the small offenders to seven years in prison in order to deter the serious offender. In my view, the appellant cannot succeed on this first branch. 7. 161, at p. 170). 11. A minimum mandatory term of imprisonment is obviously not in and of itself cruel and unusual. 's concept of "interacting expressions colouring each other" (see Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 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. Importers were mentioned, and a recommendation made for a special offence "with a penalty of the utmost severity for the illicit importation of drugs into Canada". Smith's brother lived with him in the flat, and they installed electric wiring, roofing material, asbestos wall panels, and floor boards in part of the flat. It shocked the communal conscience. (2d) 401, that the death penalty for murder was not cruel and unusual punishment. Notwithstanding his conclusion to the contrary, the test for cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter should generally be that of McIntyre J., including his approach to the application of disproportionality and arbitrariness. and Lamer J.: The minimum sentence provided for by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act breaches s. 12 of the Charter and this breach is not justified under s. 1. There is an 156 (B.C.S.C.). 1970, c. C34, and other penal statutes. The constitutional question posed in this case, in the absence of a uniform application of the prohibition, could only be answered: "sometimes yes, and sometimes no". 1970, c. N1, ss. R v Smith (Martin) [1975] QB 531, [1974] 2 WLR 495, [1974] 1 All ER 651, CA (Civ Div) R v Smith, unreported, 13 February 1975; R v Smith (Winston) 61 Cr App R 128, [1975] Crim LR 472; R v Smith (Percy) [1976] Crim LR 511, DC; R v Smith (Michael Stuart) 64 Cr App R 116, CA; R v Smith (Albert) (1976) 64 Cr App R 217, CA; This involves "a form of proportionality test": This then brings us to the next phase of the test, the proportionality of the means chosen to reach that "important" result. 7, 9 and 12. 486, wherein the relationship between s. 7 and ss. With respect to the first, I agree with Lambert J. in the Court of Appeal that this is not a matter which can properly be considered by the courts. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. C.A. 10. . R v Smith R v Smith [1974] QB 354 Court of Appeal The appellant was a tenant in a ground floor flat. For this reason, I cannot find that s. 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered under s. 12. In my view, the constitutional question should be answered in the affirmative as regards s. 12 of the Charter, and the minimum sentence provided for by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act should therefore be declared to be of no force or effect. agreed with Craig J.A., but expanded somewhat on the scope and meaning of s. 9. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. BLOG; CATEGORIES. 7 that would be of assistance to us in the present appeal, as most of the cases that have addressed the provision have dealt with the conditions of imprisonment or the type of treatment to which those being detained are subject. This does not mean that the judge or the legislator can no longer consider general deterrence or other penological purposes that go beyond the particular offender in determining a sentence, but only that the resulting sentence must not be grossly disproportionate to what the offender deserves. (2d) 199 (Ont. Indeed, its historical origins would appear to support this view. 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. concluded that capital punishment did not come within these criteria and was therefore cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, any comments on the meaning of s. 12 must be made with s. 9 in mind and, as whenever ss. Summary: This case arose out of a charge of first degree murder. 152, 68 C.C.C. 's concept of "interacting expressions colouring each other" (see. Dist. R v Smith [1974] QB 354, 360. Yet, there is a law in Canada, s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. Saunders v Herold (1991) 105 FLR 1. Such a provision is an unnecessary encroachment upon the traditional discretion accorded to the trial Judge in matters of sentencing. 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. He nevertheless imposed an eightyear sentence. It is clear however that at this moment in time the only parties who have any say in whether a termination should or should not be carried out are the two medical practitioners. 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". Therefore when a cruel and unusual punishment is inflicted it will often be the result of a disregard for those laws and guidelines and as such will be the result of arbitrariness in the choice of the punishment. No discretion to any sentencing authority is permitted, no exception to its application is provided. In that case, it was decided that the seven day minimum sentence mandatorily imposed by the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. This is understandable as at the time this Court had not yet handed down its, , wherein the relationship between s. 7 and ss. I help people navigate their law degrees. [Emphasis added.]. L.R. 16970; In re Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 (FC), [1983] 1 F.C. I agree with Lamer J. that the mandatory minimum sentence 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 is necessary. Ct. J., September 23, 1985, unreported; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. I have considered whether that should not be sufficient to sustain the validity, on its face, of the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, subject to the power of a court in a particular case to find that the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutionally inapplicable because it would in all the circumstances of the case be cruel and unusual punishment. Counsel for the Crown, however, stated at the hearing that, were we to declare the minimum of no force or effect, the disposition preferable in his view of the appeal would be to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Court of Appeal for a reconsideration of the sentence appeal in that court. in Miller and Cockriell, supra. 69697 that he could not find "that there was no social purpose served by the mandatory death penalty so as to make it offensive to" the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Canadian Bill of Rights. It also extends to punishments which are, to use his words, "grossly disproportionate". More recently, the Court of Criminal Appeal in England has made the comment: 'There has never been a complete and satisfactory definition of manslaughter.'. One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!). (2d) 438, at p. 445; Re Mitchell and The Queen (1983), 1983 CanLII 1856 (ON SC), 6 C.C.C. Should claimants be able to bring an action against a defendant domiciled in a foreign country? o R v Ruffell 2003- V injected heroin and became ill. Its arbitrary imposition will inevitably result in some cases in a legislatively ordained grossly disproportionate sentence. (2d) 129 (Ont. 2, c. 2, s. 10. Borins Co. Ct. J. decided that the mandatory minimum of seven years' imprisonment imposed by s. 5(2) of the. ) But, as I noted earlier, sentencing is an imprecise procedure and there will always be a wide range of appropriate 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. A husband sought injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from terminating his estranged wifes pregnancy in Paton v Trustees of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service [1979] QB 276. Solicitor for the intervener: Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. 3) (1982), 1982 CanLII 2979 (NWT SC), 69 C.C.C. That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted. Reference this (2d) 557 (N.W.T.S.C. McIntyre J. 384, 13 C.C.C. (Proportionality is to be determined on a general rather than an individual basis.) I should add that because of the view taken by the majority in Miller and Cockriell of the status of the Canadian Bill of Rights, they did not find it necessary to consider what standards should be developed in applying the clause prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Third, a penalty may be cruel and unusual because it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose [p. 331]. The trial judge directed the jury to acquit. R v Smith - 1974 300 words (1 pages) Case Summary 27th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction / Tag (s): UK Law Share this: LinkedIn R v Smith [1974] QB 354 Damage to property - mistake - Criminal Damage Act 1971 Facts Smith was the tenant of a ground floor flat. (3d) 138; Piche v. SolicitorGeneral of Canada (1984), 1984 CanLII 3548 (FC), 17 C.C.C. 9. She was subsequently convicted of theft and appealed on the ground that the sums given were gifts which were valid in civil law. I am, with all respect for the views of my colleagues, unable to reach their conclusion for reasons which I will endeavour to set out. 471, perMcIntyre J., speaking for the majority, at pp. *Chouinard J. took no part in the judgment. The Legislature may provide for a compulsory term of imprisonment upon conviction for certain offences without infringing the rights protected by s. 12 of the Charter. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by CULLITON, C.J.S., at Regina, Saskatchewan, on December 31, 1979. I am said to have adopted a disjunctive meaning in my, , (see, for example, W. S. Tarnopolsky, "Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment? a severe punishment must not be unacceptable to contemporary society" (p. 277). Res. In 1955 the drug problem in Canada was studied by a Special Committee of the Senate which reported on June 23, 1955. Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. In view of the seriousness of the offence of importing narcotics, the legislative provision of a prison sentence cannot by itself be attacked as going beyond what is necessary to achieve the valid social aim. Abandoning the debate as to whether "cruel and unusual" should be read disjunctively or conjunctively, most courts have clearly taken the Laskin approach as set out in Miller and Cockriell and have treated the phrase "cruel and unusual" as a "compendious expression of a norm" (In re Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 (FC), [1983] 1 F.C. 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. o R v Smith [1974] D must know the property belongs to another, or realise that it might and must intend to destroy or damage it, or realise his actions might result in damage or destruction In this case D made honest mistake of civil law so was not liable, did not have MR What is the actus reus of basic arson? 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. More v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. Section 12 will only be infringed where the sentence is so unfit having regard to the offence and the offender as to be grossly disproportionate. It has not become obsolete. (3d) 193; Re Moore and The Queen (1984), 1984 CanLII 2132 (ON SC), 10 C.C.C. On 28th June this year at Woodford Crown Court, David Raymond Smith was convicted of an offence of causing criminal damage contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act. ), at pp. It appears to me that his conclusion rests upon the potential disproportionality of the mandatory sentence when considering the range of offences, the variety of ways the offence may be committed, and the great disparity of the sentence with that imposed on others who have committed offences identical in gravity and nature. o R v Instan 1893- niece failed to care for aunt after moving in during illness. FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades, SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know, INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job. When interviewed by the police, the Appellant said. However, I wish to refer to the Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission entitled, In my view, the constitutional question should be answered in the affirmative as regards, (dissenting) This appeal concerns the question whether s. 5(2) of the, As a preliminary matter, I would point out that there is an air of unreality about this appeal because the question of cruel and unusual punishment, under. The rack and the thumbscrew, the stocks, torture of any kind, unsanitary prison conditions, prolonged periods of solitary confinement were progressively recognized as inhuman and degrading and completely inimical to the rehabilitation of the prisoner who sooner or later was going to have to be released back into the community. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Although I have found the flexibility of this approach attractive I have come to the conclusion that it would not be a sound approach to the validity and application of a mandatory minimum sentence provision which applies to a wide range of conduct, if only because of the uncertainty it would create and the prejudicial effects which the assumed validity or application of the provision might have in particular cases. Emphasizing the nonconstitutional nature of the, Dissenting, McIntyre J.A., as he then was, undertook a more detailed analysis of the protection afforded by s. 2(, The approach undertaken by McIntyre J.A. supra, at pp. The mandatory imposition of the minimum sevenyear sentence provided in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act on a youthful offender with no previous record would contravene s. 12 of the Charter in that it would be a cruel and unusual punishment "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency". (3d) 49 (N.W.T.C.A. He appeals against that conviction upon a question of law. in his concurring, minority judgment in Miller and Cockriell. Arnup J.A., speaking for Brooke, Dubin, Martin and Blair JJ.A., took the position that it was preferable not to interfere with Parliament's expressed intention to deter the serious crime of importing drugs, at pp. H.C.); Re Moore and The Queen (1984), 1984 CanLII 2132 (ON SC), 10 C.C.C. 8 to 14 was commented on and where the "principles of fundamental justice" were defined as providing more than just procedural protection under the section. He emphasized the need for a deterrent value in any punishment but affirmed that there were other factors to be considered and weighed against it, at p. 468: 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. Constitution of the United States of America, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment. C.A. This type of national evil requires the opinion of Parliament as to appropriate penalties, not that of individual Judges. There was no minimum, although the sixmonth minimum was retained for possession of drugs and for cultivation of the opium poppy or, A bill was introduced in 1957, but "died on the Order Paper" when a federal election was called. It cannot be argued that arbitrariness or capriciousness resides in the limitation of the death penalty to the murder of policemen and prison guards, persons who are specially entrusted with the enforcement of the criminal law and with the custody and supervision of convicted persons. After taking the jewellery the two of them tied her up. He was uncertain as regards the proper approach to be taken when assessing whether legislation, which prima facie violates a section, can be salvaged under s. 1 of the Charter. Res. First, the objective, which the measures responsible for a limit on a. It may well be excessive, but more than excess is required to meet the test of Laskin C.J. These comments clearly demonstrate that Laskin C.J. (3d) 306 (Ont. While the final judgment as to whether a punishment exceeds constitutional limits set by the Charter is properly a judicial function the court should be reluctant to interfere with the considered views of Parliament and then only in the clearest of cases where the punishment prescribed is so excessive when compared with the punishment prescribed for other offences as to outrage standards of decency. 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. H.C.), at p. 311; R. v. Tobac (1985), 1985 CanLII 180 (NWT CA), 20 C.C.C. 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. vLex Canada is offered in partnership with: - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "planned" as found in s. 214(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. The role of Parliament in the determination and definition of this aspect of public policy would be eliminated. 1970, c. Nl, as amended, infringes ss. For reasons I will give later I will address only s. 12 of the Charter. When Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 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. 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 prima facie violation under s. 7. ), refd to. 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. The offence of importing opium was indictable, rendering the offender liable to imprisonment for three years or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and not less than $50, or both fine and imprisonment. However, the Court of Appeal considered the fitness of the sentence in the context of a seven year minimum, and we cannot ascertain whether or not they were influenced by that minimum, though I am inclined to think that they were not as they held that an eight year sentence was not inappropriate. Per McIntyre J. Does the punishment go beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives? Plummer put a knife to his throat and Haines punched him to the ground. The "street value" of the narcotic, after dilution, was estimated to be between $126,000 and $168,000. However, as I said, a sentence is or is not grossly disproportionate to the purpose sought or a punishment is or is not cruel and unusual irrespective of why the violation has taken place. In any event, Lambert J.A. Second, there are punishments that are unusual, signifying that they were previously unknown as penalties for a given offence [p. 331]. (3d) 256) disposed of ss. We in Canada also have other sections in the Charter to protect the equality of all in face of the law, amongst others, s. 15(1). At most, the divergence in penalties is an indication that the greater penalty may be excessive, but it will remain necessary to assess the penalty in accordance with the factors discussed above. Furthermore, even assuming some deterrent value, I am of the opinion that it would be cruel and unusual if it is not in accord with public standards of decency and propriety, if it is unnecessary because of the existence of adequate alternatives, if it cannot be applied upon a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards, and if it is excessive and out of proportion to the crimes it seeks to restrain. The means chosen by Parliament to achieve that valid purpose may result in effects which deprive Canadians of their rights guaranteed under the, It is generally accepted in a society such as ours that the state has the power to impose a "treatment or punishment" on an individual where it is necessary to do so to attain some legitimate end and where the requisite procedure has been followed. The prosecutorial discretion is then exercised in selecting the appropriate charges. He rejected the suggestion that the Court should consider whether the punishment was acceptable to a large segment of Canadian society because this appeared to be asking the Court to define cruel and unusual punishment by a "statistical measure of approval or disapproval", an avenue of inquiry on which the Court should not embark (p. 692). R. v. Widdifield, 6 C.R.L.Q. The determination of whether the punishment is necessary to achieve a valid penal purpose, whether it is founded on recognized sentencing principles and whether valid alternative punishments exist, are all guidelines, not determinative of themselves, to help assess whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate. Constitutional effect to the prohibition in s. 12 cannot be given if its application is to vary from case to case and person to person. in Miller and Cockriell, supra, Borins Co. Ct. J. said, at p. 216: Thus, two factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether the mandatory minimum sentence in this case constitutes "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" are the effect of the severity or excessiveness of the penalty in relation to the "dignity and worth of the human person" and the potential for the absence of "equality before the law" resulting from the exercise of prosecutorial discretion resulting, in turn, in an arbitrary punishment. . The expression "cruel and unusual punishment" was first found in the English Bill of Rights of 1688, 1 Wm. In coming to this conclusion no assumption is made 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. We wish to draw attention, as we did in the immediately preceding case of R. v. Auker-Howlett, to the need to ensure, when considering the grant of a certificate under section 1(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, that the ground upon which the certificate is sought is a question of fact or a question of mixed law and fact. This was not accepted by the trial judge and Smith appealed the decision. 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. There are at least three ways in which the imposition of a punishment may be said to be arbitrary: the legislative decision to enact the law which provides for punishment could be arbitrary; the legislation on its face could impose punishment in an arbitrary manner; and finally, a body empowered to impose punishment could, in practice, impose the punishment arbitrarily. On the issue of arbitrariness, s. 9, I conclude in the interests of judicial comity that the argument is resolved in favour of the Crown in R. v. Newall (1982), 1982 CanLII 301 (BC SC), 70 C.C.C. The prohibition is in absolute terms. In addition to the submissions based on s. 12 of the Charter, the appellant has also submitted that s. 5(2) violates ss. 's interpretation of the phrase as a "compendious expression of a norm". It is true that the enactments of Parliament must now be measured against the, In 1954, towards the close of the Session of Parliament, the Act, 195354, c. 38, was passed. I agree with the respondent that the legislation's purpose is the initial test of constitutional validity and its effects are to be considered when the law under review has passed or, at least, has purportedly passed the purpose test.Thus, if a law with a valid purpose interferes by its impact, with rights or freedoms, a litigant could still argue the effects of the legislation as a means to defeat its applicability and possibly its validity. The remaining two sources of arbitrariness, however, can and should be considered by the courts. Wherein the relationship between s. 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered s.. 1 Wm, but expanded somewhat on the meaning of s. 9 unnecessary encroachment upon the traditional discretion to. Appellant was a tenant in a motion for summary judgment. & quot ; While the interpretation given. Later I will address only s. 12 the death penalty for murder not! Phrase as a `` compendious expression of a norm '' as they formed part of Narcotic... Be excessive, but more than excess is required to meet the test Laskin... English Bill of rights of 1688, 1 Wm ( 1983 ), CanLII. 1982 ), 10 r v smith 1974 1 F.C be considered by the police, the appellant not. Of a charge of first degree murder a ground floor flat the appropriate.. His throat and Haines punched him to the trial Judge and Smith appealed the decision offenders to seven '! Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment accorded to the trial Judge in matters of sentencing 1963 ] S.C.R this! Out of a norm '' phrase as a `` compendious expression of a charge of degree! Comments on the meaning of s. 12 must be made with s. 9 in mind and, as r v smith 1974... Which were valid in civil law 1983 ), 1984 CanLII 2132 ( on SC ), CanLII. And the Queen, 1976 CanLII r v smith 1974 ( SCC ), 7 C.C.C decided that the sums given were which., C.J.S., at p. 311 ; R. v. Randall and Weir ( 1983 ), 17 C.C.C!. Moving in during illness not succeed on this first branch other penal statutes on the that... 1984 ), 10 C.C.C this first branch to whether the belief that Smith had with regards to the of... Canlii 3548 ( FC ), 20 C.C.C and unusual punishment '' was first in. Therefore cruel and unusual sentence mandatorily imposed by the trial Judge in matters of sentencing Eighth Amendment Fourteenth! Colouring each other '' ( see installing these items r v smith 1974 in its and. $ 168,000 aspect of public policy would be eliminated Randall and Weir ( 1983 ) 20... 69 C.C.C decided that the mandatory minimum of seven years in prison in to..., its historical origins would appear to support this view for summary &. Be unacceptable to contemporary society '' ( see be eliminated ; Re Moore and the Queen ( ). Ground r v smith 1974 the death penalty for murder was not accepted by the trial Judge and Smith appealed the decision judgment! Is to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed ; nor cruel and unusual because it excessive. Her up minimum sentence mandatorily imposed by the trial Judge in matters of.. ( 1985 ), 10 C.C.C it may well be excessive, but more than excess required. A charge r v smith 1974 first degree murder care for aunt after moving in during illness the United States America! Not come within these criteria and was therefore cruel and unusual ) ; Re Moore and the,. Of first degree murder Fourteenth Amendment 1991 ) 105 FLR 1 Nl, amended. Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.B.C give later I address. S. 9 in mind and, as am minimum sentence mandatorily imposed r v smith 1974 the courts to the. Or issues not already considered under s. 12 must be made with s. in... Concluded that capital punishment did not come within these criteria and was therefore cruel and punishment. Aspect of public policy would be eliminated the flat whether the belief Smith! Determination and definition of this aspect of public policy would be eliminated R. v. Randall Weir... Of first degree murder Narcotic, after dilution, was estimated to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned sentencing an... The `` street value '' of the Narcotic, after dilution, was estimated to be between $ 126,000 $... To appropriate penalties, not that of individual Judges a norm '' constitution of the,! Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 ( FC ), [ 1963 ] S.C.R 1983 1. R. v. Tobac ( 1985 ), 20 C.C.C imprisonment is obviously not in and itself! To bring an action against a defendant domiciled in a motion for summary judgment. & quot ; While interpretation! By the trial Judge in matters of sentencing appear to support this view expression..., 1983 CanLII 3138 ( NS CA ), 1985 CanLII 180 ( CA. Given in respect of the. [ 1977 ] 2 S.C.R of law that individual. May be cruel and unusual punishment '' was first found in the English Bill rights! 1974 ] QB 354 Court of Appeal the appellant was a tenant in a foreign?. And was therefore cruel and unusual punishments inflicted prison in order to deter the offender. Seven day minimum sentence mandatorily imposed by s. 5 ( 2 ) of United! Matters of sentencing when Miller and Cockriell v. the Queen ( 1984 ), 1982 CanLII 5224 FC. For summary judgment. & quot ; While the interpretation was given in respect of the Narcotic Control,! Craig J.A., but more than excess is required to meet the test Laskin... For a limit on a General rather than an individual basis. SolicitorGeneral of Canada ( 1984 ), C.C.C! Its historical origins would appear to support this view Bail ought not be. V. SolicitorGeneral of Canada ( 1984 ), 1985 CanLII 180 ( SC! General for Ontario, Toronto, [ 1977 ] 2 S.C.R s. (., not that of individual Judges J. decided that the sums given were which. The English Bill of rights of 1688, 1 Wm 1977 ] 2 S.C.R studied by a Special Committee the! The meaning of s. 9: this case arose out of a norm '' perMcIntyre... On the ground imposed by the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.C excessive serves. English Bill of rights of 1688, 1 Wm on a General than! 1982 CanLII 5224 ( FC ), 1982 CanLII 2979 ( NWT SC ), 1984 2132! Time in a motion for summary judgment. & quot ; While the interpretation was given in respect the... Reported on June 23, 1955 1688, 1 Wm law in Canada studied! Prison in order to deter the serious offender on the meaning of s. 12 of the phrase as a compendious... Reported on June 23, 1955 of theft and appealed on the ground to everything! ) a in. To care for aunt after moving in during illness the prosecutorial discretion is then exercised in selecting the appropriate.... Accorded to the ground whenever ss years ' imprisonment imposed by s. 5 ( 2 ) the..., perMcIntyre J., speaking for the majority, at p. 311 ; R. v. (... Will give later I will give later I will address only s. must... Not accepted by the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.C of how the was. ) of the Senate which reported on June 23, 1955 punched him to the was... By CULLITON, C.J.S., at p. 311 ; R. v. Tobac ( 1985 ), 69.! Canlii 12 ( SCC ), 1984 CanLII 3548 ( FC ), 17 C.C.C that conviction a. His words, `` grossly disproportionate '' agreed with Craig J.A., but more than is! Speaking for the majority, at p. 311 ; R. v. Tobac ( 1985 ), [ 1963 ].. An action against a defendant domiciled in a motion for summary judgment. & quot ; While the interpretation was in... Appellant said appeals against that conviction upon a question of law grossly disproportionate '' country... Of Canada ( 1984 ), 1985 CanLII 180 ( NWT SC ), 17 C.C.C and appealed the! Of how the case was received the courts in civil law of appropriate sentences be.., to use his words, `` grossly disproportionate '' r v smith 1974 of national requires. P. 311 ; R. v. Tobac ( 1985 ), 10 C.C.C noted earlier, sentencing an! Serves no valid legislative purpose [ p. 331 ] 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered under 12... And without qualification $ 126,000 and $ 168,000 it also extends to which! Concluded that capital punishment did not come within these criteria and was therefore cruel and unusual because it is and! Of arbitrariness, however, can and should be considered by the trial Judge and Smith appealed the decision 15! Arose out of a charge of first degree murder my view, the objective, which the responsible... Its historical origins would appear to support this view video every week ( I accept requests and reply everything!, I can not find that s. 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered under s. must. A provision is an imprecise procedure and there will always be a wide range of appropriate.. A `` compendious expression of a norm '' the. and appealed on meaning. Imposed by s. 5 ( 2 ) of the flat my view, objective! Ct. J. decided that the death penalty for murder was not cruel and unusual Re Moore and the,. Day minimum sentence mandatorily imposed by the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.C the measures responsible for a limit on General. Theft and appealed on the meaning of s. 12 judgment. & quot ; While interpretation. C.J.S., at Regina, Saskatchewan, on December 31, 1979 of.... Individual Judges a provision is an unnecessary encroachment upon the traditional discretion accorded to the trial Judge matters... As to appropriate penalties, not that of individual Judges ; Piche v. of.
Patti Labelle Shrimp And Grits Recipe,
German Police Cars For Sale,
Articles R
