Article

In Defence of Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Surcharges

August 21, 2014
Authors
Gannon BeaulnePartner
Lincoln CaylorPartner
The Harper government has lost some very public court battles lately, highlighting current tensions between Parliament and the judiciary over mandatory minimum sentencing tools. The government's most recent defeat came in R. v. Michael. In this case, a prominent Ontario Court judge in Ottawa, Justice David Paciocco, convicted a homeless, alcohol and drug addicted 26-year-old named Shaun Michael of nine offences, including assault against a peace officer. Michael faced $900 in mandatory victim surcharges in addition to four months already spent in custody and two years of probation. Justice Paciocco refused to order the mandatory victim surcharges. He found that a $900 fine would be cruel and unusual punishment when combined with prison and probation, contrary to Section 12 of the Charter. And so the Court struck down the Criminal Code section creating the mandatory victim surcharge regime as unconstitutional. Written by Lincoln Caylor and Gannon Beaulne, and published in the Ottawa Citizen.
Social Media
Download
Download
Subscribe
Republishing Requests

For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com.

For informational purposes only

This publication provides an overview of legal trends and updates for informational purposes only. For personalized legal advice, please contact the authors.

Authors

Gannon Beaulne, Partner
Toronto  •   416.777.4805  •   beaulneg@bennettjones.com
Lincoln Caylor, Partner
Toronto  •   416.777.6121  •   caylorl@bennettjones.com