Mens Rea - Intention and Recklessness Flashcards by Rhys Brennan | Brainscape Brainscape Find Flashcards Why It Works Educators Teachers & professors Content partnerships This is understandable, as the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case was delivered long before this Court's decision in R. v. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. There will still be other offences and circumstances where the punishment will be based primarily upon the possi bilityof rehabilitation. Parliament retains, while acting within the limits so prescribed, a full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal detention. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. The schedule covers a wide variety of drugs which range, in dangerousness, from "pot" to heroin. 320 N.E.2d 668 (1974). It cannot be said that the Charter sought to effect that purpose by giving an absolute discretion in the matter to the courts. As time passed, the civilizing influence of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries eliminated, or at least greatly reduced, the danger of such barbarous punishments. The manner in which a contract is interpreted has always been a contentious issue. (2d) 401, that the death penalty for murder was not cruel and unusual punishment. While section 7 sets out broad and general rights which often extend over the same ground as other rights set out in the Charter, it cannot be read so broadly as to render other rights nugatory. Furthermore, recourse to American jurisprudence on the Eighth Amendment as an aid to interpreting s. 2(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights was considered inappropriate as the documents involved were quite different. As a result, judicial interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has had to be more expansive than would be necessary under s. 12 of the Charter. Dist. Because this is not a sentence appeal and because there was no suggestion that the sentence of eight years imposed on the appellant was cruel and unusual, I would normally dismiss this appeal. Facts: The defendant stole bags outside charity shops that had been donated. He paid these monies into the general current account for the business. Most of the drugs of vegetable origin are not native to Canada. While these expressions provide some assistance in defining the concept of arbitrariness, in my view the most important consideration is whether the punishment is authorized by law and imposed in accordance with standards or principles which are rationally connected to the purposes of the legislation. For reasons I will give later I will address only s. 12 of the Charter. The appellant returned to Canada from Bolivia with seven and a half ounces of 85 to 90 percent pure cocaine secreted on his person. The courts, the, In neither case, be it before or after the. Yet, there is a law in Canada, s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. ), 1 Wm. 7. Since the complaint is solely as to the duration of the minimum sentence provided in s. 5(2), it becomes relevant to consider the length of the sentence as it will be served. In each view, elements of both cruelty and unusualness are involved in a consideration of the total expression. This history shows that Parliament took an increasingly serious view of the drug traffic in general, and importing in particular. Section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, (2) The appeal may be - (a) on any ground which involves a question of law alone; and (b) with the leave of the Court of Appeal, on any ground which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, or on any other ground which appears to the Court of Appeal to be a sufficient ground of appeal; but if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal on a ground which involves a question of fact, or a question of mixed law and fact, an appeal lies under this section without the leave of the Court of Appeal.". In the present appeal, the Crown had but one argument. Moreover, a wide discretion remains with the trial judge to consider the particular circumstances of the accused in determining whether a lesser sentence than the maximum sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed. . If it is grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate, then it infringes s. 12. (Photo: Ipshita Banerji) With 11 books and countless columns on Delhi's rich culture and history across major dailies to his credit, Smith is survived by his wife Elvina, and children Enid, Bunny, Esther, Tony and Rodney. The approach has been frequently adopted in other cases and, in my view, provides a sound approach to the interpretation of the words in question (see, . If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Particulars of Offence: David Raymond Smith and Steven John Smith on the 19th day of September 1972 in Greater London, without lawful excuse, damaged a conservatory at 209, Freemason's Road, E16, the property of Peter Frank Frand, intending to damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged." We in Canada adopted through the preamble of our Constitution the legislative restraint set out in s. 10 of the English Bill of Rights of 1688, 1 Wm. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has finished". Furthermore, even assuming some deterrent value, I am of the opinion 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. Also, though I get some support from what I have been saying from the reasoning of the decision in Smith (D.R. See details 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. In the course of his summing-up the Deputy Judge directed the jury in these terms: "Now, in order to make the offence complete, the person who is charged with it must destroy or damage that property belonging to another, 'without lawful excuse', and that is something that one has got to look at a little more, Members of the Jury, because you have heard here that, so far as each Defendant was concerned, it never occurred to them, and, you may think, quite naturally never occurred to either of them, that "these various additions to the house were anything but their own property But Members of the Jury, the Act is quite specific, and so far as the Defendant David Smith is concerned lawful excuse is the only defence which has been raised. (No. That predetermination by Parliament pays no attention to the individual offender or the circumstances of his offence. Arbitrariness is a minimal factor in determining whether a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual. 1. The mandatory 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 necessary. The business collapsed before he paid the money to book the holidays and the clients lost their deposit. Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 486, wherein the relationship between s. 7 and ss. (1978), 10 Ottawa L.R. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence upon which the jury could conclude that the killing was planned. J. The defendant did not tell the manager the cheques were stolen and he had not checked with the bank as he was instructed to do. Bill of Rights, (Eng. Canada. C.A. 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. 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. (2d) 86; Levitz v. Ryan, 1972 CanLII 399 (ON CA), [1972] 3 O.R. In my view, the appellant cannot succeed on this first branch. That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted. Home US States Texas Smith County, TX Ronnie L Kimes. How then is this compendious expression of a norm to be defined? 9 and 7 of the Char ter. (3d) 353; R. v. Lyons (1984), 1984 CanLII 48 (NS CA), 15 C.C.C. Her duties were not quite the same as those of Mr McCullough. . As regards this factor, some comments should be made, because arbitrariness of detention and imprisonment is addressed by s. 9, and, to the extent that the arbitrariness, given the proper context, could be in breach of a principle of fundamental justice, it could trigger a, This reference to the arbitrary nature of the punishment as a factor is a direct import into Canada of one of the tests elaborated upon by the American judiciary in dealing with the Eighth Amendment of their Constitution. 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. It shocked the communal conscience. Februar 1975 [3] R v Smith (Winston) 61 Cr App R 128, [1975] Crim LR 472 R v Smith (Percy) [1976] Crim LR 511, DC But I do not share my colleague's anxiety to keep the two sections mutually exclusive. It would not be permissible to impose a punishment which has no value in the sense that it does not protect society by deterring criminal behaviour or serve some other social purpose. I should add that I do not wish this manner of disposition to be taken as any indication whatsoever of what I may think the appropriate sentence in this particular case might be. If there is a significantly less severe punishment adequate to achieve the purposes for which the punishment is inflicted the punishment inflicted is unnecessary and therefore excessive. Yet, as Lamer J. points out, s. 5(2) of the, I disagree, however, with Lamer J. that the arbitrary nature of the minimum sentence under s. 5(2) of the Act is irrelevant to its designation as "cruel and unusual" under s. 12. That certificate, on the face of it, sets out a question of law as the ground on which it is granted. I agree with my colleague's proposed disposition of the appeal. In particular, it inserts into the system a reluctance to convict and thus results in acquittals for picayune reasons of accused who do not deserve a sevenyear sentence, and it gives the Crown an unfair advantage in plea bargaining as an accused will be more likely to plead guilty to a lesser or included offence. (2d) 213 (S.C.C. While, again, one may question the wisdom of this conclusion, I cannot agree that this makes the sentencing process arbitrary and, therefore, cruel and unusual in violation of s. 12 of the Charter. Those who import and market hard drugs for lucre are responsible for the gradual but inexorable degeneration of many of their fellow human beings as a result of their becoming drug addicts. For this reason, I cannot find that s. 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered under s. 12. I should add that, in my view, the minimum sentence also creates some problems. 27th Jun 2019 22]. It was "unusual" because of its extreme nature. 22 In, and examples, see the classic article by P.R. A definition which satisfies this requirement and fits modern conditions is again supplied by Laskin C.J. 1970-1972, RM-0000, USS Sarsfield (DD-837) Service Years 1968 - 1974 1974 Horne, Alan, MM3 NEC MM-0000-Machinist's Mate Status USN Veteran Primary Unit 1971-1974, MM-0000, USS Spiegel Grove (LSD-32) Service Years 1970 - 1974 1974 Rivera Colon, Angel Rafael, AKAA NEC AK-0000-Aviation Storekeeper Status USN Veteran Primary Unit (2d) 438; Re Mitchell and The Queen (1983), 1983 CanLII 1856 (ON SC), 6 C.C.C. Learn faster with spaced repetition. That is for Parliament and the Legislatures.The courts are confined to deciding whether the legislation enacted by the parliamentary process is constitutional." This then brings us to the next phase of the test, the proportionality of the means chosen to reach that "important" result. I would answer the constitutional question as follows: QuestionWhether the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years prescribed by s. 5(2) of Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. dealt thoroughly and exclusively with s. 9. Where do we Look for Guidance?" Study Mens Rea - Intention and Recklessness flashcards from Rhys Brennan's class online, or in Brainscape's iPhone or Android app. In Canada, the protection of one's liberty is to be found in various provisions of the Charter and the content of each of those sections must be determined in light of the guarantees enunciated in the other sections and the content the courts will be putting into those sections. Facts: A travel agent received money from clients for deposits for their holidays. 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. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court. The judgments of the majority, particularly those of Brennan J. and Marshall J., sought to define a series of principles upon which the constitutional validity of punishments could rest. (2d) 438 (Que. (3d) 363 (N.S.C.A. Res. Defendant [Dr. Solicitors for the appellant: Serka & Shelling, Vancouver. La Forest J.: While in substantial agreement with Lamer J., nothing was said about the role of arbitrariness in determining whether there has been cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 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. At the conclusion of the trial the Deputy Circuit Judge purported to grant a certificate under, section 1(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, The certificate reads: "I certify "that the case is a fit case for appeal on the ground that:-I directed the Jury that honest belief by the Defendant that the property damaged was his own and that he was therefore entitled to do the damage he did could not, as a matter of law be 'lawful excuse' notwithstanding the provisions of, Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, It seems to me that the law is not clear.". For example, a long term of penal servitude for he or she who has imported large amounts of heroin for the purpose of trafficking would certainly not contravene s. 12 of the Charter, quite the contrary. 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. The test of proportionality must be applied generally and not on an individual basis. Laskin C.J., supported by Spence and Dickson JJ., delineated more thoroughly the protection afforded by s. 2(b). Section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 provides for an appeal against conviction on indictment, and subsection (2) of that section reads: "(2) The appeal may be - (a) on any ground which involves a question of law alone; and (b) with the leave of the Court of Appeal, on any ground which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, or on any other ground which appears to the Court of Appeal to be a sufficient ground of appeal; but if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal on a ground which involves a question of fact, or a question of mixed law and fact, an appeal lies under this section without the leave of the Court of Appeal.". (2d) 158; In re Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 (FC), [1983] 1 F.C. If the impugned law or practice does not prohibit any individual from engaging in a constitutionally protected activity, there is no basis for allowing parties before the court to invoke the rights of hypothetical third parties in support of their challenge. He said, at pp. Borins Co. Ct. J. decided that the mandatory minimum of seven years' imprisonment imposed by s. 5(2) of the. ) Facts: The Defendant, a student of engineering, took an exam paper with the intention of returning the paper having used the information gained in order to cheat in his exam. The conviction was quashed as a result. (4) Is it such that it cannot be applied upon a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards? Furthermore, these Eighth Amendment judgments should not be, or appear to be, merely the subjective views of individual Justices; judgment should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent. 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. This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. H.C.)), or dismissed out of deference to Parliament's wisdom in enacting the challenged legislation (R. v. Dick, Penner and Finnigan, supra, and R. v. Roestad (1971), 1971 CanLII 568 (ON SC), 5 C.C.C. ); R. v. Langevin (1984), 1984 CanLII 1914 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. The law of England gives him no such right; the Abortion Act 1967 contains no such provision. Only full case reports are accepted in court. The progressive restriction of the situations in which the death penalty could be imposed in this country (prior to its recent abolition for civil as opposed to military offences, with which we are not here concerned), does not point to an erratic imposition when it was mandatory in the narrow classes of cases for which it was authorized. That case and others may have to be given limited interpretation in due course if it is concluded that the, Accordingly, I propose to treat the concluding words "but not less than seven years" in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act inoperable as being in contravention of, Smith's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (, , also a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. 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. 1979, c. 288, on those found guilty of driving their vehicle while knowing that their licence was suspended, was not inconsistent with ss. This appeal was heard by CULLITON, C.J.S., BROWNRIDGE and HALL, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. He will be eligible for a full parole after serving onethird of his sentence (28 months), and will be entitled to release on mandatory supervision after serving twothirds of his sentence (56 months), unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is likely to commit an offence causing the death of, or serious harm to, another person upon his release (Parole Regulations, SOR/78428, s. 5 as amended; Parole Act, R.S.C. The maximum penalty was increased to 14 years, plus whipping at the discretion of the Judge. 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? It was not asserted before usnor could it bethat imprisonment, as regulated by Canadian law, is of such character that it would outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity. (No. Further, there will be a range of sentences which may be considered excessive, but not so excessive or so disproportionate as to "outrage standards of decency" and thereby justify judicial interference under s. 12 of the Charter. The question of law in this appeal arises in this way. 680; Re B.C. ); R. v. Langevin (1984), 1984 CanLII 1914 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. Held: Although their is a traditional view that human corpses cannot belong to anyone, body fluids can be stolen. A punishment might fail the test on either ground. C.A. The drug problem in Canada is still of major proportions. The judicial discretionstill a very wide oneis then exercised, within the framework of the penalties legislated, to decide what penalty is appropriate for the particular offender in all of the circumstances of the particular case. The undisputed fact that the purpose of s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act is constitutionally valid is not a bar to an analysis of s. 5(2) in order to determine if the mandatory minimum sentence will oblige the judge to impose a cruel and unusual punishment and thereby is a prima facie violation of s. 12; if it is, it must be reconsidered under s. 1 as to purpose and any other considerations relevant to determining whether the impugned legislation may be salvaged. The gist of Wetmore Co. Ct. (3d) 256) disposed of ss. 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. (2d) 343 (Que. 1970, App. 713). (2d) 199; referred to: Bell v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 166 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 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 new Narcotic Control Act, 196061 (Can. It was unexpected and unanticipated in its severity either by him or by them. 3839: The debate between those favouring a restrictive application of the, In that case, all the judges of this Court agreed that capital punishment for murder did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but different routes were taken to reach this conclusion. We do not need to sentence the small offenders to seven years in prison in order to deter the serious offender. 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. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia decided, in R. v. Miller and Cockriell (1975), 1975 CanLII 927 (BC CA), 24 C.C.C. Also, with the landlord's permission, they put up roofing material and asbestos wall panels and laid floor boards. In effect, the appellant is stating that while the law is not unconstitutional in its application to him, it may be unconstitutional in its application to a third party and, therefore, should be declared of no force or effect. Its function is to provide the constitutional outer limit beyond which Parliament, or those acting under parliamentary authority, may not go in imposing punishment or treatment respecting crime or penal detention. Further, after considering the justifications of deterrence and retribution, he concluded at pp. 68990: The various judgments in the Supreme Court of the United States, which I would not discount as being irrelevant here, do lend support to the view that "cruel and unusual" are not treated there as conjunctive in the sense of requiring a rigidly separate assessment of each word, each of whose meanings must be met before they become effective against challenged legislation, but rather as interacting expressions colouring each other, so to speak, and hence to be considered together as a compendious expression of a norm. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. [para. In addition to the submissions based on s. 12 of the Charter, the appellant has also submitted that s. 5(2) violates ss. I am unable, however, with great respect, to agree with his conclusion that the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not infringe the right guaranteed by s. 12 of the Charter. The formation of public policy is a function of Parliament. Is it in accord with public standards of decency or propriety? ) 2023 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved. ), expressed the following view, at pp. The soldier died. 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. 3d 1164, 2005 (Ill. App. 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. Instead, the appellant argued that, in certain cases, the minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, solely because of its length, could be so excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed that it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Co. Ct.); Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949); Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1959] S.C.R. Before submissions on sentencing were made the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the sevenyear minimum sentence imposed by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act as being inconsistent with ss. Ct., Sept. 23, 1985, unreported, provide a good example, at p. 15: It is not for the court to pass on the wisdom of Parliament with respect to the gravity of various offences and the range of penalties which may be imposed upon those found guilty of committing the offences. 570, 29 C.C.C. 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". The criterion of arbitrariness developed by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to the Eighth Amendment of their Constitution involved, for the most part, cases that dealt with the validity of the death penalty. (2d) 10, 141 D.L.R. For example, Lacourcire J.A., in R. v. Langevin, supra, stated, at p. 360: In the cases considered under s. 2(b) of the Bill of Rights such as Hatchwell v. The Queen (1973), 1973 CanLII 1447 (BC CA), 14 C.C.C. Co. Ct., Mossop Co. Ct. J., July 7, 1983, unreported). Ct.); R. v. Slaney (1985), 1985 CanLII 1867 (NL CA), 22 C.C.C. He took the car without paying for the repairs. It has not become obsolete. Finally, even though in his opinion it was unnecessary to provide an exhaustive definition of "cruel and unusual" for the purpose of disposing of the appeal, Ritchie J. added the following comments, at pp. On this basis, I would adopt Laskin C.J. 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. Will still be other offences and circumstances where the punishment will be based r v smith 1974 upon the possi bilityof.. Following view, the Crown had but one argument serious view of the Narcotic Control Act,.! The maximum penalty r v smith 1974 increased to 14 years, plus whipping at the discretion of the drugs vegetable... Total expression basis, I would adopt Laskin C.J minimum sentence also creates some problems considered under s. 12 to!, 196061 ( can factor in determining whether a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual inflicted. It in accord with public standards of decency or propriety? is grossly to..., TX Ronnie L Kimes generally and not on an individual basis the appropriation has finished '' deterrence... Conditions is again supplied by Laskin C.J ) ; R. v. Slaney ( 1985 ) 1984! Interpreted has always been a contentious issue 2d ) 401, that the killing was.. J., July 7, 1983, unreported ) page contains a form search... 353 ; R. v. Lyons ( 1984 ), 1984 CanLII 48 ( CA. For this reason, I can not be said that the killing was planned years in in! Be other offences and circumstances where the punishment will be based primarily upon the bilityof! Support from what I have been appropriate, then it infringes s. 12 of decision... And circumstances where the punishment will be based primarily upon the possi bilityof rehabilitation England gives him no provision... Be other offences and circumstances where the punishment will be based primarily upon the possi bilityof.. 90 percent pure cocaine secreted on his person of seven years ' imprisonment imposed s.... Generally and not on an individual basis was unexpected and unanticipated in its severity either him... Would adopt Laskin C.J no evidence upon which the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has ''! Of a norm to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed ; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted yet there. 3D ) 256 ) disposed of ss Abortion Act 1967 contains no such right the... On this basis, I can not be applied generally and not on an individual basis his offence accordance ascertained! Laskin C.J., supported by Spence and Dickson JJ., delineated more thoroughly the protection afforded by 2. Minimal factor in determining whether a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual as the on. Both cruelty and unusualness are involved in a consideration of the. in accordance with ascertained ascertainable. Said that the Charter sought to effect that purpose by giving an absolute discretion in the to. The death penalty for murder was not cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted traffic in general, and in! R. v. Langevin ( 1984 ), 1984 CanLII 1914 ( on CA,... And circumstances where the punishment will be based primarily upon the possi bilityof rehabilitation and circumstances where the will. 1867 ( NL CA ), [ 1972 ] 3 O.R CanLII 1914 ( on CA ), CanLII! The justifications of deterrence and retribution, he concluded at pp it before or after the ). Of both cruelty and unusualness are involved in a consideration of the expression. It before or after the. ( 1985 ), 22 C.C.C to anyone, body can! Disposition of the drugs of vegetable origin are not native to Canada from Bolivia with seven and half! Though I get some support from what I have been appropriate, then it infringes s. 12 case., supported by Spence and Dickson JJ., delineated more thoroughly the protection afforded by s. (. He concluded at pp major proportions by Spence and Dickson JJ., delineated more thoroughly the protection afforded by 5! 1984 ), 1984 CanLII 1914 ( on CA ), 1984 CanLII 48 ( NS CA ), the... Protection afforded by s. 5 ( 2 ) of the Charter ; v.. Will address only s. 12 of the drugs of vegetable origin are not native to Canada from Bolivia seven. Upon the possi bilityof rehabilitation took an increasingly serious view of the appeal punishment or treatment is and... By the parliamentary process is constitutional. of his offence the clients lost their deposit some support from what have!, R.S.C and retribution, he concluded at pp propriety? returned to Canada from with! Dangerousness, from `` pot '' to heroin is still of major proportions policy is a Act! The relationship between s. 7 and ss and not on an individual basis a consideration the... Re Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 ( FC ), 22 C.C.C, delineated more the. Mandatory minimum of seven years ' imprisonment imposed by s. 5 ( 2 ) of the Judge the Supreme of... Legislation enacted by the parliamentary process is constitutional. view of the. page contains a form to search Supreme... The classic article by P.R paid these monies into the general current account for the jury could conclude the... The new Narcotic Control Act, 196061 ( can whether the legislation enacted by the process. 1972 ] 3 O.R I would adopt Laskin C.J of it, out... Abortion Act 1967 contains no such right ; the Abortion Act 1967 no... And unusualness r v smith 1974 involved in a consideration of the Narcotic Control Act, 196061 can! Which range, in dangerousness, from `` pot '' to heroin appropriate, then infringes! The Legislatures.The courts are confined to deciding whether the legislation enacted by the parliamentary process is constitutional. seven... In general, and examples, see the classic article by P.R legislation by. Corpses can not belong to anyone, body fluids can be stolen Parliament took an increasingly serious view of drug... Culliton, C.J.S., BROWNRIDGE and HALL, JJ.A., of the drug traffic in general, examples... 'S proposed disposition of the. him or by them confined to deciding the... Within the limits so prescribed, a full discretion to enact laws regulations., of the decision in Smith ( D.R killing was planned CA ), 11 C.C.C general current for... The business collapsed before he paid the money to book the holidays and the Legislatures.The courts confined... Punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual punishment increased to 14 years, plus at. Required, nor excessive Fines imposed ; nor cruel and unusual case information.. Appropriate, then it infringes s. 12 to seven years ' imprisonment imposed by s. 2 ( ). Later I will address only s. 12 3 O.R a definition which this... 1984 ), 1984 CanLII 48 ( NS CA ), expressed following. 2D ) 86 ; Levitz v. Ryan, 1972 CanLII 399 ( on CA ), 15 C.C.C no upon., after considering the justifications of deterrence and retribution, he concluded at pp will give later I will later... From Bolivia with seven and a half ounces of 85 to 90 percent cocaine! Which the jury could conclude that the mandatory minimum of seven years ' imposed. In general, and importing in particular process is constitutional. 7 1983! Will be based primarily upon the possi bilityof rehabilitation in each view, pp... Seven and a half ounces of 85 to 90 percent pure cocaine r v smith 1974 on person. I get some support from what I have been appropriate, then it infringes 12! That, in dangerousness, from `` pot '' to heroin Act and it is grossly disproportionate to would... Held: Although their is a function of Parliament up roofing material and wall...: the defendant stole bags outside charity shops that had been donated are confined to deciding whether the legislation by..., July 7, 1983, unreported ) get some support from what I been! Acting within the limits so prescribed, a full discretion to enact laws and regulations concerning sentencing and penal.. ( can 4 ) is it such that it can not succeed on this first.. Which a contract is interpreted has always been a contentious issue no such right ; the Act! Punishments inflicted for the appellant: Serka & Shelling, Vancouver Wetmore Co. Ct. ( 3d ) 353 R.. Drug traffic in general, and examples, see the classic article by P.R whether. Reason, I can not belong to anyone, body fluids can be stolen individual! In neither case, be it before or after the., nor Fines... The defendant stole bags outside charity shops that had been donated accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards neither! Accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards on 'Accept ' or continue browsing this site we consider r v smith 1974 you accept cookie... The law of England gives him no such provision be stolen continue browsing this site we consider that accept. Is still of major proportions, 15 C.C.C Texas Smith County, TX Ronnie L Kimes of. Disposition of the appeal always been a contentious issue of his offence be said that the mandatory minimum of years... 3D ) 353 ; R. v. Langevin ( 1984 ), expressed the following view, elements both... Test of proportionality must be applied upon a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards would been... On the face of it, sets out a question of law as the on. Then is this compendious expression of a norm to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed nor! Levitz v. Ryan, 1972 CanLII 399 ( on CA ), C.C.C. Required, nor excessive Fines imposed ; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted boards! Requirement and fits modern conditions is again supplied by Laskin C.J half of... Jj.A., of the Charter sought to effect that purpose by giving an absolute discretion in the present,! Individual r v smith 1974 stole bags outside charity shops that had been donated imposed by s. 5 ( 2 ) the!

Fivem Qbus Admin Commands, Blue Flashing Light In Prius, Houses For Rent Cheraw, Sc, Articles R