View source for Jump, Step and Gap Principles

{{LevelOne}}
{{HeaderPrinciples}}
==General Principles==
The "jump", "step", and "gap" principles are principles designed to limit the range of appropriate sentences for offenders who have a prior related records. They are derived from several principles including proportionality, rehabilitation, restraint under s. 718(d), and the totality principle under s. 718.2(c).<ref>
''R v Bernard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/flrt1 2011 NSCA 53] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}{{at|26}}<br>
Frigault v R., [http://canlii.ca/t/fpvch 2012 NBCA 8] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Quigg JA}}{{at|17}}<br>
''R v Robitaille'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1dc39 1993 CanLII 2561] (BC CA), (1993), 31 BCAC 7{{perBCCA|Lambert JA}} at para 9 ("... the theory that sentences should go up only in moderate steps is a theory which rests on the sentencing principles of rehabilitation. It should be only in cases where rehabilitation
is a significant sentencing factor.")<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Jump/Step Principle==
The "jump" or "step" principle (also called the "principle of incremental sentencing") states that subsequent sentences passed should not be disproportionate to the prior offence (ie. a "jump" in sentence). A subsequent offence should have an incremental increase proportionate to frequency of the repeated offences.<ref>
''R v White'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rvsv 2007 NLCA 44] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Cameron JA}}<br> 
''R v Muyser'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22xkv 2009 ABCA 116] (CanLII){{perABCA|Fraser JA}}<br> 
''R v Murphy'', [2011] N.J. No. 43 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2fn2v 2011 NLCA 16] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Welsh JA}}</ref> 
The purpose of this rule is to avoid having the accused re-punished for past bad acts.<ref>
{{supra1|Muyser}}{{at|8}}<br>
</ref>

A significant jump in sentence is inconsistent with rehabilitation where that is a significant factor in sentence.<ref>{{supra1|White}}, at paras 5 to 8</ref>

The subsequent similar sentence must be progressive.<ref>
''R v Muyser'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22xkv 2009 ABCA 116] (CanLII){{perABCA|Fraser CJ}}
</ref>
A dramatic increase in sentence (ie. a "jump") due to a recent prior similar record would violate this principle.<ref>
R v Borde [http://canlii.ca/t/1c062 2003 CanLII 4187] (ON CA), (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 417{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}, at para 39</ref> 

The jump principle will be violated when a sentence goes from 2 years to 4 years on subsequent conviction.<ref>
Re Morand and Simpson, (1959), 30 C.R. 298 (Sask. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g7b2r 1959 CanLII 235] (SK CA){{per|Martin CJ}}<br>
See ''R v Clark'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jxww 2005 ABPC 40] (CanLII){{perABPC|Lamoureux J}} citing Ruby on Sentencing
</ref> Or where the sentence goes from probation to 8 years.<ref>
''R v Sloane'', [1973] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 202 {{NOCANLII}}<br>
See {{supra1|Clark}} citing Ruby on Sentencing
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Exceptions===
The jump rule does not apply where the index offence is greatly more serious than the prior offences.<ref>
R v Borde [http://canlii.ca/t/1c062 2003 CanLII 4187] (ON CA), (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 417{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}, at para 39 ("[The jump principle] has little application where the severity of the offender’s crimes shows a dramatic increase in violence and seriousness.")<br>
''R v JG'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lr4j 2005 CanLII 36170] (ON SC){{perONSC|R. Smith J.}}<br>
''R v Courtney'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frz4k 2012 ONCA 478] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} at para 10-11</ref>
The jump principle has greater application for sentences on the lower range of seriousness as there is a greater flexibility in what is an appropriate sentence.<ref>
{{supra1|Muyser}}{{at|9}}<br>
</ref>

The jump principle is of "less utility" when dealing with an accused "with a lengthy criminal record on multiple convictions".<ref>
Frigault v R., [http://canlii.ca/t/fpvch 2012 NBCA 8] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Quigg JA}}<br>
</ref> And also where rehabilitation is not realistic and record is related to the offence.<ref>
''R v Lohnes'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qnz5 2007 NSCA 24] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}} at paras 40, 42<br>
''R v Thomson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fxbhx 2013 BCCA 220] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Harris JA}} at paras 7 to 8<br>
</ref>

A jump in sentence may be permissible where a previously lenient sentence was not effective in deterring the offender.<ref>
''R v Westerman'', 2002 CarswellOnt 1041 (C.J.){{NOCANLII}} at paras 28 to 30, 44 to 49<br> 
''R v Ferrigon'', 2007 CarswellOnt 3072 (S.C.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1rfzp 2007 CanLII 16828] (ON SC){{perONSC|Molloy J}} at paras 8 to 12<br>
</ref>

The jump principle cannot trump the principle of proportionality.<ref>
''R v Blair'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1m3vk 2005 ABCA 414] (CanLII){{perABCA|Costigan JA}}{{at|10}}</ref>

It can be concluded that the prior sentence was not sufficiently deterrent and so the sentence for the new offence should be increased to focus on specific deterrence.

{{reflist|2}}

===Step-up Principle===
The closely related "step-up" principle (primarily employed in British Columbia) suggests that subsequent sentences should be increased in "moderate steps" or else it may interfere with rehabilitation.<ref>
R v Bush (D.F), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p29n 2006 BCCA 350] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} at para 9 ("the principle … that is often used to describe the philosophy that sentences should usually increase in moderate steps since a sudden, large increase in the length of a sentence may interfere with the goal of rehabilitation, if that is the focus of the sentence.")</ref> This principle however should not be applied where denunciation and deterrence are the primary goals.<ref>
Bush{{ibid}} at para 9 ("The step-up principle has little application where a sentencing judge determines that the offence in question calls for a sentence in which the primary goals are denunciation and deterrence")</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Gap Principle==
The "gap principle" directs courts to take into consideration the gaps of time between offences.<ref>''R v Smith'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p11l 2006 NSCA 95] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}} at para 36: extensive citation from Ruby on Sentencing</ref> It gives credit to someone who has made an effort to avoid criminal charges.
<ref>see §8.83 of Clayton Ruby, Sentencing, 7th ed. (Markham:  LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2008) </ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offender#Criminal Record]]