Restraint Principle: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "\{\{Fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "Fr:$1" Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (40 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Fr:Principe_de_retenue]] | |||
{{Currency2|January|2020}} | |||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrinciples}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrinciples}} | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
The principle of restraint is found in s. 718.2(d) and (e).<ref> | The principle of restraint is found in s. 718.2(d) and (e).<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|MacDonald|1mcs1|1997 CanLII 9710 (SK CA)|113 CCC (3d) 418}}{{perSKCA|Lane JA}}{{atL|1mcs1|147}}, concurring with Sherstobitoff JA ("I read s. 718.2(d) and (e) as a clear intention on the part of Parliament to reduce | |||
institutional incarceration and to adopt the principle of restraint.")<br> | institutional incarceration and to adopt the principle of restraint.")<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Gladue|1fqp2|1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)|[1999] 1 SCR 688}}{{perSCC|Cory and Iacobucci JJ}}{{atsL|1fqp2|37| to 41}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Section 718.2 states, in part: | Section 718.2 states, in part: | ||
{{ | {{quotation2| | ||
718.2<br> | 718.2<br> | ||
{{ellipsis}} | |||
:(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and | :(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and | ||
:(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. | :(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. | ||
1995, c. 22, s. 6; | {{LegHistory90s|1995, c. 22}}, s. 6; | ||
1997, c. 23, s. 17; | {{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 23}}, s. 17; | ||
{{LegHistory00s|2000, c. 12}}, s. 95; | {{LegHistory00s|2000, c. 12}}, s. 95; | ||
{{LegHistory00s|2001, c. 32}}, s. 44(F), c. 41, s. 20; | {{LegHistory00s|2001, c. 32}}, s. 44(F), c. 41, s. 20; | ||
| Line 22: | Line 25: | ||
{{LegHistory10s|2017, c. 13}}, s. 4; | {{LegHistory10s|2017, c. 13}}, s. 4; | ||
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 293. | {{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 293. | ||
| | |{{CCCSec2|718.2}} | ||
|{{NoteUp|718.2}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
; When Retaint is to be Used | ; When Retaint is to be Used | ||
Restraint is an important principle that should be "used in an appropriately reasonable but humane manner". It should "invigorat[e] the confidence of the public that sentences imposed are both just and fair" | Restraint is an important principle that should be "used in an appropriately reasonable but humane manner". It should "invigorat[e] the confidence of the public that sentences imposed are both just and fair."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|May|fs05l|2012 ABCA 213 (CanLII)|102 WCB (2d) 615}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Function of Principle | ; Function of Principle | ||
The principle operates to permit judges to pose "a just and appropriate punishment, and nothing more" | The principle operates to permit judges to pose "a just and appropriate punishment, and nothing more."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|CAM|1frb9|1996 CanLII 230 (SCC)|[1996] 1 SCR 500}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|1frb9|80}}<Br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Parliament codified the principle of restraint in order to limit the use of incarceration.<ref> | Parliament codified the principle of restraint in order to limit the use of incarceration.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Batisse|22cd6|2009 ONCA 114 (CanLII)|241 CCC (3d) 491}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}} (2:1){{atL|22cd6|35}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Problem with Overly Harsh Sentences | ; Problem with Overly Harsh Sentences | ||
An overly harsh or oppressive sentences that "fail to acknowledge the unique circumstances and facts of a case will not be seen as fair or rational" | An overly harsh or oppressive sentences that "fail to acknowledge the unique circumstances and facts of a case will not be seen as fair or rational."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Lacasse|gml9v|2015 SCC 64 (CanLII)|[2015] 3 SCR 1089}}{{perSCC|Wagner J}} (5:2){{atL|gml9v|3}} ("The credibility of the criminal justice system in the eyes of the public depends on the fitness of sentences imposed on offenders. A sentence that is unfit, whether because it is too harsh or too lenient, could cause the public to question the credibility of the system in light of its objectives.")<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRx|Thompson|h3408|2017 NSPC 18 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|Derrick J}}{{atL|h3408|73}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Least Intrusive Sentence | ; Least Intrusive Sentence | ||
Restraint not only means that prison should be a sanction of last resort, but also means that the court should "seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction."<ref> | Restraint not only means that prison should be a sanction of last resort, but also means that the court should "seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Hamilton|1hmc9|2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA)|186 CCC (3d) 129}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|1hmc9|96}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIR|Ali|jspff|2022 ONCA 736 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Zarnett JA}}{{atL|jspff|40}} ("This court has held that the restraint principle requires a sentencing judge to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration, especially for first offenders. It is an error, especially when sentencing a first offender, to focus exclusively on general deterrence and to fail to consider individual deterrence and rehabilitation")<Br> | |||
{{CanLIIR|Ali|Sharma|hznk0|2019 ONCA 274 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Pardu JA}}{{AtL|hznk0|23}} | |||
</ref> | |||
This is particularly important for first offenders.<REf> | |||
{{ibid1|Ali}}{{atL|jspff|40}} | |||
</reF> | |||
Where other dispositions have been tried and failed, and jail has not previously been imposed, the imposition of a "short, sharp" sentence can be appropriate, particularly where the offence is related to property and not violence.<ref> | Where other dispositions have been tried and failed, and jail has not previously been imposed, the imposition of a "short, sharp" sentence can be appropriate, particularly where the offence is related to property and not violence.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Vandale|htxjw|1974 CanLII 1610 (ON CA)|21 CCC (2d) 250 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}} citing McKenna J. of the English Court of Appeal in ''R v Curran'' (1973), 57 Crim. App. R. 945 ("As a general rule it is undesirable that a first sentence of immediate imprisonment should be very long, disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and imposed as this sentence was for reasons of general deterrence, that is, as a warning to others.")</ref> | |||
; Objectives of Sentencing | ; Objectives of Sentencing | ||
| Line 58: | Line 68: | ||
"General deterrence cannot be the sole consideration. Appropriate consideration must be given to the rehabilitation of the offender."<ref> | "General deterrence cannot be the sole consideration. Appropriate consideration must be given to the rehabilitation of the offender."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Blanas|1mh80|2006 CanLII 2610 (ON CA)|207 OAC 226}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1mh80|5}} | |||
</ref> | |||
; Jump Principle | |||
The [[Jump, Step and Gap Principles|"jump principle"]] acts as a form of restraint as it limits courts from increasing penalties for repeat offenders, particularly where rehabilitation remains a significant sentencing factor.<Ref> | |||
{{CanLIIR|Willier|1lb8k|2005 BCCA 404 (CanLII)|66 WCB (2d) 499}}{{perBCCA|Smith JA}}{{AtL|1lb8k|30}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 69: | Line 84: | ||
==First-time Offenders== | ==First-time Offenders== | ||
Where a first-time offender is to be sentenced a judge should consider all possible dispositions other than incarceration. Custody should only be imposed where "the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate" | Where a first-time offender is to be sentenced a judge should consider all possible dispositions other than incarceration. Custody should only be imposed where "the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Stein|htwh4|1974 CanLII 1615 (ON CA)|15 CCC (2d) 376 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}{{atL|htwh4|4}} ("In our view, before imposing a custodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are open to him and only impose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate")<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Priest|6hxl|1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA)|[1996] 30 OR (3d) 538}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{atL|6hxl|20}} ("The duty to explore other dispositions for a first offender before imposing a custodial sentence is not an empty formalism which can be avoided merely by invoking the objective of general deterrence. It should be clear from the record of the proceedings, preferably in the trial judge’s reasons, why the circumstances of this particular case require that this first ")<Br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Pierce|6hxl|1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA)|[1996] 30 OR (3rd) 538}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0) - courts should consider non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases of first time offenders | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
It is preferable in most cases that non-violent first time offenders be punished in other ways than incarceration.<ref> | It is preferable in most cases that non-violent first time offenders be punished in other ways than incarceration.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Laschalt|gch0f|1993 CanLII 14689 (MB CA)|81 CCC (3d) 154}}{{perMBCA|Sinclair JA}}{{atp|59}} ("The imprisonment of non-violent first offenders is counter-productive. It strains a system already strained by more violence and repeat offenders than it can rehabilitate. It often results in a first offender emerging bitter and more ready to commit further crimes. Better that a non-violent, first offender be punished in another way")<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
For first time offenders, the principle of restraint "requires that the sentencing judge consider all sanctions apart from incarceration" and where necessary ensure the term be as "short as possible and tailored to the circumstances of the accused" | For first time offenders, the principle of restraint "requires that the sentencing judge consider all sanctions apart from incarceration" and where necessary ensure the term be as "short as possible and tailored to the circumstances of the accused."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Battise|22cd6|2009 ONCA 114 (CanLII)|241 CCC (3d) 491}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}}{{atL|22cd6|32}}<br> | |||
{{supra1|Priest}}{{atp|545}}<br> | {{supra1|Priest}}{{atp|545}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 86: | Line 101: | ||
; Offences of Violence | ; Offences of Violence | ||
Certain violent offences will attract a jail sentence despite being a first offence.<ref> | Certain violent offences will attract a jail sentence despite being a first offence.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR-N|Perlin|, [1977] N.S.J. No 548}}{{perNSCA|A Macdonald JA}}{{at-|8}}("In my opinion the over riding consideration in sentencing with respect to crimes of violence must be deterrence and it is for such reason that save for exceptional cases substantial terms of imprisonment must be imposed.")<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|MacNeil|26bdt|2009 NSSC 310 (CanLII)|900 APR 118}}{{perNSSC|S Macdonald J}} citing {{supra1|Perlin}}{{at-|31}}<Br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 95: | Line 110: | ||
* [[Jump, Step and Gap Principles]] | * [[Jump, Step and Gap Principles]] | ||
* [[Release by Police on Undertaking]] - re different "principle of restraint" | * [[Release by Police on Undertaking]] - re different "principle of restraint" | ||
* {{Fra|Principe de retenue}} | |||
Latest revision as of 07:08, 23 July 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2020. (Rev. # 95792) |
General Principles
The principle of restraint is found in s. 718.2(d) and (e).[1]
Section 718.2 states, in part:
718.2
...
- (d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
- (e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
1995, c. 22, s. 6; 1997, c. 23, s. 17; 2000, c. 12, s. 95; 2001, c. 32, s. 44(F), c. 41, s. 20; 2005, c. 32, s. 25; 2012, c. 29, s. 2; 2015, c. 13, s. 24, c. 23, s. 16; 2017, c. 13, s. 4; 2019, c. 25, s. 293.
- When Retaint is to be Used
Restraint is an important principle that should be "used in an appropriately reasonable but humane manner". It should "invigorat[e] the confidence of the public that sentences imposed are both just and fair."[2]
- Function of Principle
The principle operates to permit judges to pose "a just and appropriate punishment, and nothing more."[3]
Parliament codified the principle of restraint in order to limit the use of incarceration.[4]
- Problem with Overly Harsh Sentences
An overly harsh or oppressive sentences that "fail to acknowledge the unique circumstances and facts of a case will not be seen as fair or rational."[5]
- Least Intrusive Sentence
Restraint not only means that prison should be a sanction of last resort, but also means that the court should "seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction."[6] This is particularly important for first offenders.[7]
Where other dispositions have been tried and failed, and jail has not previously been imposed, the imposition of a "short, sharp" sentence can be appropriate, particularly where the offence is related to property and not violence.[8]
- Objectives of Sentencing
The principle also requires the judge to consider rehabilitation in setting the length of the sentence.[9]
"General deterrence cannot be the sole consideration. Appropriate consideration must be given to the rehabilitation of the offender."[10]
- Jump Principle
The "jump principle" acts as a form of restraint as it limits courts from increasing penalties for repeat offenders, particularly where rehabilitation remains a significant sentencing factor.[11]
- Mental Health as Factor
Where mental health issues played a central role in the commission of the offence, deterrence and punishment are of less importance.[12]
- ↑
R v MacDonald, 1997 CanLII 9710 (SK CA), 113 CCC (3d) 418, per Lane JA, at para 147, concurring with Sherstobitoff JA ("I read s. 718.2(d) and (e) as a clear intention on the part of Parliament to reduce
institutional incarceration and to adopt the principle of restraint.")
R v Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688, per Cory and Iacobucci JJ, at paras 37 to 41
- ↑
R v May, 2012 ABCA 213 (CanLII), 102 WCB (2d) 615, per curiam (3:0)
- ↑
R v CAM, 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500, per Lamer CJ, at para 80
- ↑ R v Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114 (CanLII), 241 CCC (3d) 491, per Gillese JA (2:1), at para 35
- ↑
R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 1089, per Wagner J (5:2), at para 3 ("The credibility of the criminal justice system in the eyes of the public depends on the fitness of sentences imposed on offenders. A sentence that is unfit, whether because it is too harsh or too lenient, could cause the public to question the credibility of the system in light of its objectives.")
R v Thompson, 2017 NSPC 18 (CanLII), per Derrick J, at para 73
- ↑
R v Hamilton, 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 186 CCC (3d) 129, per Doherty JA, at para 96
R v Ali, 2022 ONCA 736 (CanLII), per Zarnett JA, at para 40 ("This court has held that the restraint principle requires a sentencing judge to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration, especially for first offenders. It is an error, especially when sentencing a first offender, to focus exclusively on general deterrence and to fail to consider individual deterrence and rehabilitation")
R v Ali, hznk0, per Pardu JA, at para 23 - ↑ Ali, ibid., at para 40
- ↑ R v Vandale, 1974 CanLII 1610 (ON CA), 21 CCC (2d) 250 (ONCA), per Martin JA citing McKenna J. of the English Court of Appeal in R v Curran (1973), 57 Crim. App. R. 945 ("As a general rule it is undesirable that a first sentence of immediate imprisonment should be very long, disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and imposed as this sentence was for reasons of general deterrence, that is, as a warning to others.")
- ↑
Batisse, supra, at para 33
- ↑ R v Blanas, 2006 CanLII 2610 (ON CA), 207 OAC 226, per curiam, at para 5
- ↑ R v Willier, 2005 BCCA 404 (CanLII), per Smith JA, at para 30
- ↑ Batisse, supra, at para 38
First-time Offenders
Where a first-time offender is to be sentenced a judge should consider all possible dispositions other than incarceration. Custody should only be imposed where "the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate."[1] It is preferable in most cases that non-violent first time offenders be punished in other ways than incarceration.[2]
For first time offenders, the principle of restraint "requires that the sentencing judge consider all sanctions apart from incarceration" and where necessary ensure the term be as "short as possible and tailored to the circumstances of the accused."[3]
- Offences of Violence
Certain violent offences will attract a jail sentence despite being a first offence.[4]
- ↑
R v Stein, 1974 CanLII 1615 (ON CA), 15 CCC (2d) 376 (ONCA), per Martin JA, at para 4 ("In our view, before imposing a custodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are open to him and only impose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate")
R v Priest, 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), [1996] 30 OR (3d) 538, per Rosenberg JA, at para 20 ("The duty to explore other dispositions for a first offender before imposing a custodial sentence is not an empty formalism which can be avoided merely by invoking the objective of general deterrence. It should be clear from the record of the proceedings, preferably in the trial judge’s reasons, why the circumstances of this particular case require that this first ")
R v Pierce, 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), [1996] 30 OR (3rd) 538, per curiam (3:0) - courts should consider non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases of first time offenders - ↑
R v Laschalt, 1993 CanLII 14689 (MB CA), 81 CCC (3d) 154, per Sinclair JA, at p. 59 ("The imprisonment of non-violent first offenders is counter-productive. It strains a system already strained by more violence and repeat offenders than it can rehabilitate. It often results in a first offender emerging bitter and more ready to commit further crimes. Better that a non-violent, first offender be punished in another way")
- ↑
R v Battise, 2009 ONCA 114 (CanLII), 241 CCC (3d) 491, per Gillese JA, at para 32
Priest, supra, at p. 545
- ↑
R v Perlin, [1977] N.S.J. No 548(*no CanLII links)
, per A Macdonald JA, at para 8("In my opinion the over riding consideration in sentencing with respect to crimes of violence must be deterrence and it is for such reason that save for exceptional cases substantial terms of imprisonment must be imposed.")
R v MacNeil, 2009 NSSC 310 (CanLII), 900 APR 118, per S Macdonald J citing Perlin, supra, at para 31
See Also
- Jump, Step and Gap Principles
- Release by Police on Undertaking - re different "principle of restraint"
- Principe de retenue (Fr)