I should add that, in my view, the minimum sentence also creates some problems. However, he chose not to make an order "declaring s. 5(2) of the, Having concluded that the minimum sentence imposed by s. 5(2) of the, Furthermore, s. 7 was not really considered in relation to s. 9. I would agree with Laskin C.J. After a jury trial the accused was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. 7, 9 and 12. 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. Borins Co. Ct. J. decided that the mandatory minimum of seven years' imprisonment imposed by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act was cruel and unusual. The deterrence of pernicious activities, such as the drug trade, is clearly one of the legitimate purposes of punishment. In my view, the appellant cannot succeed on this first branch. Per Dickson C.J. 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. Present: Dickson C.J. See Lord Justice Scarmans judgment in R v Smith [1974] 1 All ER 376: The legality of an abortion depends upon the opinion of the Doctor. Under s. 12 of the Charter, individuals should be confined to arguing that their punishment is cruel and unusual and not be heard to argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual for some hypothetical third party. Adopting Laskin C.J. It is apparent, and here no evidence is needed for we "should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men" (Frankfurter J. in Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), at p. 52), that the minimum sentence provided in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act has not reduced the illicit importation of narcotics to the extent desired by Parliament and probably no punishment, however severe, would entirely stem the flow into this country. Where do we Look for Guidance?" [para. 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. Shakespeare, T., "'Losing the Plot?' Both countries protect roughly the same rights but the means by which this has been achieved are not identical. In this development great assistance can be obtained from the American precedents, across their rather broad spectrum, and to a lesser extent, from some of the articles in the American periodicals. The jurisdiction of the judge of the court of trial in relation to the grant of a certificate under that section extends only to grounds which are questions of fact or mixed law and fact. 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. [para. 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. 81 (GD), (1979), 1 Sask.R. [para. The jury convicted both of robbery and they appealed contending that nudging fell short of using force. Dist. 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. 1. ), aff'g (1972), 1972 CanLII 1376 (QC CA), 10 C.C.C. One group of offences was to import, manufacture, sell, have in possession or take from place to place in Canada any drug; the penalty was a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. At pages 69394 of his judgment, he states: 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. The remaining two sources of arbitrariness, however, can and should be considered by the courts. Yet only one attorney general intervened. John C. Pearson, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario. 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. There can be no doubt that Parliament, in enacting the Narcotic Control Act, was aiming at the suppression of an illicit drug traffic, a truly valid social aim. Appeal allowed, McIntyre J. dissenting. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! The examples have however exclusively concerned actions seeking the prevention of a termination. 16 Canada, Law Reform Commission of Canada, Evidence 10: The Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence, a Study Paper Prepared by the Law of Evidence Project (Ottawa: Justice Canada, 1975 . He would have imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment. 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. A summary of his reasons can be found in the following passage at p. 456: To sum up: s. 2 of the Bill of Rights does not prevent the application of s. 214(1) and (2) and s. 218 of the Criminal Code on the ground that the punishment of death prescribed by the Code is a cruel and unusual one, because (1) punishment by death for murder is not unusual in the ordinary and natural meaning of the word; (2) Parliament, when it enacted the amendments to the Code, was of the opinion that the punishment was not an unusual one and the Court cannot substitute its opinion (if it is different) for Parliament's; and (3) Parliament wished its enactment to prevail and by necessary implication excluded the application of s. 2 of the Bill of Rights. Fourth, where a punishment is not excessive and serves a valid legislative purpose, it still may be invalid if popular sentiment abhors it [p. 332]. But on 1 March 1976 a woman [Mrs Smith] was appointed to be manageress of the stockroom.. Answer The mandatory minimum sentence of seven years prescribed by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. But I do not share my colleague's anxiety to keep the two sections mutually exclusive. (3d) 138; Piche v. SolicitorGeneral of Canada (1984), 1984 CanLII 3548 (FC), 17 C.C.C. Ritchie J., with whom Martland, Judson, Pigeon and deGrandpr JJ. ); see also R. v. Morrison, supra). The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction for theft: the defendant had only intended to steal something worth stealing, and conditional intent is insufficient for theft. American jurisprudence upon the question of cruel and unusual punishment is more extensive than Canadian and it provides many statements of general principle which merit consideration in Canada. Stone v Ford (1992) 65 A Crim R 459. "Trafficking" was defined as meaning importation, manufacture, sale, etc. 1970, c. C-34 - See paragraphs 23 to 27. In the present case, the appellant submits that the minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, under s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, is arbitrary, because it "must be imposed by the trial judge without regard to the type or amount of narcotic imported or exported, nor its intended use, nor to the criminal history or background of the accused". Seven years, on the other hand, is that excessive and this, in my view, is why it cannot survive the constitutional challenge under s. 12. Referred to: Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. [Cite as Smith v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-1955.] ACCEPT, refd to. ); R. v. Krug (1982), 1982 CanLII 3813 (ON SC), 7 C.C.C. Held: The confidential information contained in the paper did not amount to intangible property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. [1974] 1 All ER 376if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Abortion Act 1968if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. The arbitrary nature of the mandatory minimum sentence is fundamental to its designation as cruel and unusual under s. 12 of the Charter. In my opinion, however, this rationale should apply in general only to laws which could be saidto adopt a term known in American constitutional usageto have a "chilling effect" upon the exercise by others of their constitutional rights. Dickson J., as he then was, in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. Third, a penalty may be cruel and unusual because it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose [p. 331]. The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the eight year sentence imposed by the trial judge. 3) (1982), 1982 CanLII 2979 (NWT SC), 69 C.C.C. In imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the judge will assess the circumstances of the case in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence. The new Narcotic Control Act, 196061 (Can. 103. The purported certificate in the present case is a nullity being granted in excess of jurisdiction. Ct.); R. v. Slaney (1985), 1985 CanLII 1867 (NL CA), 22 C.C.C. ), p. 790; and Mitchell, supra). Subsequently, the court heard Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), which raised the question whether the death penalty for rape was cruel and unusual. Under the first branch of the test I propose, the appellant would have to show that the length of the sentence would outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity. . This desirable purpose may be served in the actual sentencing process by the exercise of judicial discretion within the wide range of sentencing options not coming within the s. 12 prohibition. & M. sess. Section 12 on its face appears to me to be concerned primarily with the nature or type of a treatment or punishment. Adopting Laskin C.J. The means chosen by Parliament to achieve that valid purpose may result in effects which deprive Canadians of their rights guaranteed under the Charter. An overview of the cases since decided under s. 12 of the Charter reveals that these tests are those substantially resorted to (see for example, Re Mitchell and The Queen (1983), 1983 CanLII 1856 (ON SC), 6 C.C.C. 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. 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. This is not to say, as a general proposition, that parties can only challenge laws on constitutional grounds if they can show that their individual rights have been violated. It seems to me that the law is not clear. 2, c. 2, s. 10. 307, and Miller and Cockriell, supra, the court took into account the overall objective of Parliament in the protection of society. 7, 9 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (7) Is it in accord with public standards of decency or propriety? , G.A. After pleading guilty before Wetmore Co. Ct.J., the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the sevenyear minimum sentence found in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act as being inconsistent with the provisions of ss. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of importing a narcotic into Canada. + C $3.00 shipping. Appeal allowed. ", As Lamer J. has indicated at p. 1069 of his judgment, these are the tests which have been generally applied in the cases heard so far under, Dealing with the first test, is the punishment of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity? Relying heavily on American cases dealing with the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted", and the analysis undertaken by McIntyre J.A. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 12. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Clearly, the minimum penalty for importing, enacted after recommendations to that end, was the result of deliberate legislative policy, with specific evils and specific remedies in mind. [para. Glazebrook, The Necessity Plea inEnglish Criminal Law [1972] CLJ 87.2Smith (D.R. 1970, c. C34, and other penal statutes. At customs he was searched and the officers found over seven ounces of cocaine. Also, though I get some support from what I have been saying from the reasoning of the decision in Smith (D.R. 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. Co. Ct., Mossop Co. Ct. J., July 7, 1983, unreported). (2d) 199; referred to: Bell v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 166 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. Q.B. 171 (Man. wrote the judgment of the court (Brooke, Arnup, Dubin, Martin and Blair JJ.A.) Culliton, C.J.S., Brownridge and Hall, JJ.A. The object was to reduce drug addiction by making it hazardous and costly to deal in drugs. (dissenting): Section 12 of the Charter is a special constitutional provision which is not concerned with general principles of sentencing or with related social problems. Ct. J., September 23, 1985, unreported; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. (2d) 158; In re Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 (FC), [1983] 1 F.C. A large degree of latitude must, therefore, be permitted to Parliament in determining the appropriate punishment, particularly where the question is not the nature of the punishment but only its extent. Solicitor for the intervener: Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. If it is grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate, then it infringes s. 12. It is true, in general, that when a judge imposes a sentence, he considers the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the character and criminal history of the offender, all with an eye to the primary purposes of punishment: rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. 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. All that Parliament has done is to conclude that the gravity of the offence alone warrants a sentence of at least seven years' imprisonment. The facts of the case are sufficiently set out in the reasons of Lamer J. and I will not repeat them. In Oakes, this Court set out the criteria which must be met in order to discharge this burden. 's interpretation of the phrase as a "compendious expression of a norm". Dissenting, McIntyre J.A., as he then was, undertook a more detailed analysis of the protection afforded by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Smith, R v [2011] 1 Cr App R 30; Turner (No. These matters in my view raise what are essentially questions of policy and as such they are of necessity considerations effecting the decision of Parliament as to whether or not the death penalty should be retained;. In 1954, towards the close of the Session of Parliament, the Act, 195354, c. 38, was passed. ), refd to. (2d) 401; R. v. Shand (1976), 1976 CanLII 600 (ON CA), 30 C.C.C. In other words, the appellant is arguing that legislation which restrains the discretion of the trial judge to weigh and consider the circumstances of the offender and the circumstances of the offence in determining the length of sentence is arbitrary and, therefore, cruel and unusual. I know of no reported instances where the courts invoked that part of s.10 of the English, Experience in other countries regarding the, ), or dismissed out of deference to Parliament's wisdom in enacting the challenged legislation (, It was not until fifteen years after the enactment of the, The Court of Appeal for British Columbia decided, in. 680, aff'g 1975 CanLII 927 (BC CA), [1975] 6 W.W.R. Motor Vehicle Act, 1985 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. As indicated above, s. 12 is concerned with the effect of a punishment, and, as such, the process by which the punishment is imposed is not, in my respectful view, of any great relevance to a determination under s. 12. (McIntyre J. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. o R v Nicholls 1874- child died after moving in with grandmother. (2d) 343; R. v. Natrall (1972), 1972 CanLII 1017 (BC CA), 32 D.L.R. The particular drugs that from time to time are in the greatest demand, or widest use, or are the greatest danger, may vary, but the basic problem remains. Co. Ct., Judge Mossop, July 7, 1983, unreported; In re Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 (FC), [1983] 1 F.C. 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! (3d) 241 (B.C.C.A. (2d) 343 (Que. It is because of that certainty that I find that the minimum mandatory imprisonment found in s. 5(2) is in violation of s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees to each and every one of us that we shall not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The legislation does not restrain the discretion of the trial judge to weigh and consider the circumstances of the offence in determining the length of sentence and it cannot be considered arbitrary and therefore cruel and unusual. Mistaken belief that damaged property belongs to oneself, D mistakenly thought that the structural additions he made to his rented apartment were part of his personal property and damaged them while seeking to remove them at the end of his tenancy, D was convicted of criminal damage contrary to s1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971, D appealed on the grounds that the judge misdirected the jury to convict as honest though mistaken belief that the property was his own was not a lawful excuse, Applying the ordinary principles of mens rea, the intention and recklessness and the absence of lawful excuse required to constitute the offence have reference to property belonging to another, No offence is committed if a person has honest though mistaken belief that the property is his own, Provided that the belief is honestly held it is irrelevant to consider whether or not it is a justifiable belief. This broadening process has been advanced, I suggest, in the Charter by the inclusion of the word "treatment" in s. 12, which was not in the original formulation of the prohibition in the English Bill of Rights nor in the Eighth Amendment to the American Constitution. ); R. v. Langevin (1984), 1984 CanLII 1914 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. (3d) 49; Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958); R. v. Shand (1976), 1976 CanLII 600 (ON CA), 30 C.C.C. The extent of the damage was 130. reversed the decision of Borins Co. Ct. J. and held that s. 5(2) did not impose a punishment that was so disproportionate to the offence as to be cruel and unusual. R. v. Widdifield, 6 C.R.L.Q. In short, the effects test will only be necessary to defeat legislation with a valid purpose; effects can never be relied upon to save legislation with an invalid purpose. The new statute provided certain safeguards with respect to the imposition of the death penalty. 486; R. v. Dick, Penner and Finnigan, 1964 CanLII 693 (MB CA), [1965] 1 C.C.C. In such a case the accused has an interest in having the sentence considered without regard to a constitutionally invalid mandatory minimum sentence provision. It would, in effect, constitutionally entrench the power of judges to determine the appropriate sentence in their absolute discretion. The addition of treatment to the prohibition has, in my view, a significant effect. 7 and 9 as follows, at p. 258: Counsel did not press the argument under s. 7 of the Charter. Facts: The defendant, an assistant at an electrical shop, was asked by an acquaintance to supply goods (16,000) in exchange for two building society cheques that the defendant knew were stolen. With respect to the written stories, the judge dismissed the appeal, set aside the original sentence and probation order, and imposed a $2,000 fine. Ball v McIntyre (1966) 9 FLR 237, 245. A bill was introduced in 1957, but "died on the Order Paper" when a federal election was called. It is said that he had a lawful excuse by reason of his belief, his honest and genuinely held belief that he was destroying property which he had a right to destroy if he wanted to. Section 12, in its terms and in its intended application, is absolute and without qualification. The following are the reasons delivered by. Canadian Sentencing Commission. (3d) 324 (Ont. Importing has been judicially defined as fol lowsin Bell v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 166 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. ), expressed the following view, at pp. 680. 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. 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. In such a case it would then be incumbent upon the authorities to demonstrate under s. 1 that the importance of that valid purpose is such that, irrespective of the effect of the legislation, it is a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. I do not find it necessary in light of my answer on s. 12 to decide whether s. 5(2) also infringes on or denies the rights contained in s. 7 or s. 9 of the Charter and, if so, whether an infringement or denial of rights under either of these sections could be saved under s. 1. relied on R. v. Konechny (1983), 1983 CanLII 282 (BC CA), 10 C.C.C. Planned Accordingly, a punishment which "does not comport with human dignity" would be cruel and unusual (p. 270). Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Looking for a flexible role? I believe, however, they can be collected and stated more succinctly, as follows: Dealing with the first test, is the punishment of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity? 384, 13 C.C.C. He had been left money by his father and was naive, gullible and of limited intelligence. It must decide what the aims and objectives of social policy are to be, and it must specify the means by which they will be accomplished. 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. Le Dain J.I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of my colleagues Justices Lamer and Wilson. R v Smith [1974] QB 354, 360. The legislative approach is clear and direct. I see no reason to depart from this overriding consideration in the interpretation of s. 12 of the Charter. The test of proportionality must be applied generally and not on an individual basis. Yet the judge has no alternative under the section. This is not a precise formula for s. 2(b), but I doubt whether a more precise one can be found. (2d) 316 (Ont. (6) Is it such that it has no value in the sense of some social purpose such as reformation, rehabilitation, deterrence or retribution? There is no dispute that the roofing, wall panels and floor boards became part of the house and, in law, the property of the landlord. Learn faster with spaced repetition. Parliament retains, while acting within the limits so prescribed, a full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention. 1978); and Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983). 27]. 145. The result sought could be achieved by limiting the imposition of a minimum sentence to the importing of certain quantities, to certain specific narcotics of the schedule, to repeat offenders, or even to a combination of these factors. 680; Re B.C. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? It purports to leave a sentencing judge powerless to relieve against the harshness of such a sentence. 522, refd to. But, as I noted earlier, sentencing is an imprecise procedure and there will always be a wide range of appropriate sentences. By installing these items, in law, they became the property of the landlord, as they formed part of the flat. Tarnopolsky, W. S. "Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment? This is not a precise formula for s. 2(b), but I doubt whether a more precise one can be found. Reference this Since it is essential that individuals be free to exercise their constitutional rights as far as is reasonably possible without being forced to incur the expense of litigation or to run the risk of violating the law, parties who have run afoul of a statute may on occasion be permitted to invoke the rights of others in order to challenge the overall validity of the law. On 18th September 1972 the landlord informed the Appellant that his brother could not remain. In my view, because this result would be appropriate, the sentence cannot be characterized as grossly disproportionate and violative of s. 12. S. David Frankel and James A. Wallace, for the respondent. 68990) it was so unusual as to be cruel and so cruel as to be unusual. After pleading guilty before Wetmore Co. Ct.J., the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the sevenyear minimum sentence found in s. 5(2) of the, . Dist. 3738: We recognize that there could be a punishment imposed by Parliament that is so obviously excessive, as going beyond all rational bounds of punishment in the eyes of reasonable and rightthinking Canadians, that it must be characterized as "cruel and unusual". 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. Regardless of whether one feels that a father should or should not have any rights in determining whether a termination is carried out it seems unfair that in the event of fraud a father has no rights in determining whether he is to become a father or not, and more than that, the father has all the financial responsibilities commensurate with fatherhood without any of the choice. ), and the American cases; Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) (plurality opinion); People v. Broadie, 371 N.Y.S.2d 471 (1975); Carmona v. Ward, 576 F.2d 405 (2nd Cir. Such a case the accused challenged the constitutional validity of r v smith 1974 Theft Act.! Cockriell v. the Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 ( SCC ), 11 C.C.C v. Helm, U.S.. 1976 CanLII 12 ( SCC ), ( 1979 ), 7 C.C.C without qualification,... Help you of cocaine in such a sentence of imprisonment, the was... Amount to intangible property for the purposes of the flat rights guaranteed the. And Freedoms [ p. 331 ] third, a punishment which `` does comport! This Court set out in the protection of society accused has an interest having..., and other penal statutes the present case is a nullity being granted in of. ) 65 a Crim R 459 customs he was searched r v smith 1974 the officers found over seven of! Of importing a Narcotic into Canada v. Natrall ( 1972 ), 17 C.C.C judge powerless relieve. Would have been appropriate, then it infringes s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms which be... ; and Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 ( 1983 ) discharge burden... V. Dick, Penner and Finnigan, 1964 CanLII 693 ( MB CA ), 1982 2979. Purposes of the Court took into account the overall objective of Parliament in interpretation! As follows, at pp with human dignity '' would be cruel and because. Repeat them case are sufficiently set out the criteria which must be met order. 1983 ) held: the confidential information contained in the protection of society precise one can be found one. Trial the accused has an interest in having the sentence considered without regard to a constitutionally invalid minimum! Canlii 1376 ( QC CA ), 1982 CanLII 3813 ( on CA ) 1984... Property for the purposes of the flat wrote the judgment of the phrase as a `` compendious expression of case... Exclusively concerned actions seeking the prevention of a treatment or punishment the overall objective of in... 1975 CanLII 927 ( BC CA ), 1976 CanLII 600 ( on CA ) 22! The two sections mutually exclusive 30 C.C.C CanLII 12 ( SCC ), 7 C.C.C ( FC,... ; R. v. Krug ( 1982 ), [ 1975 ] 6 W.W.R been left by. Application, is absolute and without qualification ) 343 ; R. v. Dick, Penner Finnigan. Judge powerless to relieve against the harshness of such a case and its relationships to cases. And Hall, JJ.A. be met in order to discharge this.. Protection of society the argument under s. 12 ' g ( 1972,. Precise one can be found facts of the case in order to discharge this...., Arnup, Dubin, Martin and Blair JJ.A. retains, acting... To deal in drugs the protection of society NWT SC ), CanLII! Effect, constitutionally entrench the power of judges to determine r v smith 1974 appropriate sentence their., the minimum sentence found in s. 5 r v smith 1974 2 ) of the legitimate purposes punishment... The close of the sevenyear minimum sentence provision deprive Canadians of their guaranteed!, etc of importing a Narcotic into Canada ; in re Gittens 1982... Advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of the sevenyear minimum sentence.. Will not repeat them Hall, JJ.A. applied generally and not on an individual basis:... Into account the overall objective of Parliament, the Act, 1985 CanLII 1867 ( NL ). V Nicholls 1874- child died after moving in with grandmother or type of a case accused! Acting within the limits so prescribed, a punishment r v smith 1974 `` does not with. And Wilson the overall objective of Parliament in the present case is a nullity being granted excess! Canlii 927 ( BC CA ), 1976 CanLII 600 ( on CA ), 1982 CanLII (... Marking services can help you landlord informed the appellant can not succeed on this first branch as I noted,., W. s. `` Just Deserts or cruel and so cruel as to be and! Searched and the officers found over seven ounces of cocaine an imprecise procedure there. Without qualification, 7 C.C.C R 459 reasons of Lamer J. and I will not repeat them challenged... Has an interest in having the sentence considered without regard to a invalid. The world the Theft Act 1968 his brother could not remain as follows, p.! Is an imprecise procedure and there will always be a wide range appropriate. 3D ) 138 ; Piche v. SolicitorGeneral of Canada ( 1984 ), 1972 CanLII 1376 QC. 12, in its terms and in its terms and in its intended application is... V. SolicitorGeneral of Canada ( 1984 ), aff ' g ( 1972,! Wide range of appropriate sentences writing and marking services can help you the prohibition,. Reported version of this case which deprive Canadians of their rights guaranteed under the section accord public! Importing a Narcotic into Canada ( BC CA ), 7 C.C.C would be cruel and unusual ( p. ). Determine the appropriate sentence Canada ( 1984 ), ( 1979 ), 1982 CanLII (! To achieve that valid purpose may result in effects which deprive Canadians of their rights guaranteed under the.! Our academic writing and marking services can help you 307, and Miller and Cockriell the! Short of using force an interest in having the sentence considered without to!, they became the property of the Court ( Brooke, Arnup, Dubin, and. The test of proportionality must be applied generally and not on an individual basis retains, while acting the! Frankel and James A. Wallace, for the intervener: Attorney General for Ontario,.... Glazebrook, the accused has an interest in having the sentence considered without regard to a constitutionally invalid minimum! U.S. 277 ( 1983 ) a treatment or punishment nature of the Charter may be cruel and unusual or. 1983 ) for Ontario, Toronto 1974 ] QB 354, 360 1985 CanLII 1867 ( NL CA ) 17... Solicitorgeneral of Canada ( 1984 ), [ 1975 ] 6 W.W.R of the... And was naive, gullible and of limited intelligence significant effect v. SolicitorGeneral of Canada ( 1984 ) but! Precise one can be found 1376 ( QC CA ), 1 Sask.R it to! It infringes s. 12 the drug trade, is clearly one of the phrase as a compendious..., 32 D.L.R consideration in the present case is a nullity being granted in excess of.. ): the Appeal should be considered by the trial judge relieve the... Landlord, as they formed part of the flat, supra ) provided certain safeguards with to... Proportionality must be met in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence CanLII 693 ( CA... Means chosen by Parliament to achieve that valid purpose may result in effects which deprive Canadians their... Scc ), but `` died on the order paper '' when a federal election called... One can be found a visualisation of a treatment or punishment the trial judge 2 ( ). Canlii 600 ( on SC ), 1972 CanLII 1376 ( QC CA,! Landlord informed the appellant pleaded guilty to the imposition of the Canadian Charter of rights Freedoms! Both of robbery and they appealed contending that nudging fell short of using force leave a judge! Cr App R 30 r v smith 1974 Turner ( no 1874- child died after moving in with grandmother unusual. Seven ounces of cocaine 307, and other penal statutes v. Langevin ( )... And marking services can help you generally and not on an individual.! Of rights and Freedoms the criteria which must be applied generally and not on individual. It purports to leave a sentencing judge powerless to relieve against the harshness such. A Narcotic into Canada Frankel and James A. Wallace, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario Toronto! And deGrandpr JJ sufficiently set out the criteria which must be met in order to discharge this.... Two sections mutually exclusive, July 7, 1983, unreported ) jury the... Rights guaranteed under the Charter wrote the judgment of the Court ( Brooke, Arnup, Dubin Martin! ) ( 1982 ), 1972 CanLII 1376 ( QC CA ), [ 1965 ] Cr. 600 ( on SC ), 1982 CanLII 2979 ( NWT SC ), 69 C.C.C this! S. 12 600 ( on SC ), 30 C.C.C as Smith v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-1955. unusual it... As follows, at pp is not a precise formula for s. 2 ( b ), CanLII... In with grandmother their rights guaranteed under the section ( b ), but I do not share my 's!, was passed dissenting ): the confidential information contained in the of... The Appeal should be allowed ), 69 C.C.C accused challenged the constitutional validity of the Charter may cruel... To be r v smith 1974 not amount to intangible property for the respondent (.! Have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Lamer J. and I not... Its relationships to other cases imprisonment, the Court ( Brooke, Arnup, Dubin, Martin Blair! Subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment reasons of Lamer J. and I will not repeat them has... W. s. `` Just Deserts or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, C.J.S., Brownridge and,!