Sentencing Starting Points: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "\{\{Fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1" |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[fr:Points_de_départ_de_la_détermination_de_la_peine]] | |||
{{Currency2|January|2014}} | |||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrinciples}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrinciples}} | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
A "starting point" for sentences are set as guides and are factors to consider the appropriate sentence. They are meant to achieve greater uniformity and consistency. They are "most useful in circumstances where there is a large disparity between sentences imposed" | A "starting point" for sentences are set as guides and are factors to consider the appropriate sentence. They are meant to achieve greater uniformity and consistency. They are "most useful in circumstances where there is a large disparity between sentences imposed."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|McDonnell|1fr3d|1997 CanLII 389 (SCC)|[1997] SCJ No 42}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}</ref> | {{CanLIIRP|McDonnell|1fr3d|1997 CanLII 389 (SCC)|[1997] SCJ No 42}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}</ref> | ||
Generalized offences with a "myriad of factual underpinnings" have been rejected as having a fixed "starting point" | Generalized offences with a "myriad of factual underpinnings" have been rejected as having a fixed "starting point."<ref> | ||
e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Jefferson|21cjc|2008 ABCA 365 (CanLII)|238 CCC (3d) 53}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}<br> | e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Jefferson|21cjc|2008 ABCA 365 (CanLII)|238 CCC (3d) 53}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
A judge would does not mention starting points in sentence where one exists is not committing an error in principle.<ref> | A judge would does not mention starting points in sentence where one exists is not committing an error in principle.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Lee|fpp44|2012 ABCA 17 (CanLII)|290 CCC (3d) 506}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}{{atL|fpp44|58}}<br> | {{CanLIIRP|Lee|fpp44|2012 ABCA 17 (CanLII)|290 CCC (3d) 506}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}{{atL|fpp44|58}}<br> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Stone|1fqn2|1999 CanLII 688 (SCC)|[1999] 2 SCR 290}}{{perSCC-H|Bastarache J}} <br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Wells|527n|2000 SCC 10 (CanLII)|[2000] 1 SCR 207, 141 CCC (3d) 368}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}<br> | {{CanLIIRP|Wells|527n|2000 SCC 10 (CanLII)|[2000] 1 SCR 207, 141 CCC (3d) 368}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|LM|1x21j|2008 SCC 31 (CanLII)|[2008] 2 SCR 163}}{{perSCC|Lebel J}}<br> | {{CanLIIRP|LM|1x21j|2008 SCC 31 (CanLII)|[2008] 2 SCR 163}}{{perSCC|Lebel J}}<br> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
Starting points assume the accused is of good character with no record.<ref> | Starting points assume the accused is of good character with no record.<ref> | ||
{{supra1|McDonnell}} at para 59<Br> | {{supra1|McDonnell}} at para 59<Br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Lau|1tbnn|2004 ABCA 408 (CanLII)}}{{atsL|1tbnn|29|, 31 | {{CanLIIRP|Lau|1tbnn|2004 ABCA 408 (CanLII)|193 CCC (3d) 51}}{{perABCA|Hunt JA}}{{atsL|1tbnn|29|, 31}} ("The starting point cases are based on the assumption that the offender is of previous good character. While the presence of a record is treated as aggravating, the absence of one is not mitigating. ")<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Sandercock|1nnwv|1985 ABCA 218 (CanLII)|62 AR 382, 22 CCC (3d) 79}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}}{{atL|1nnwv|17}}<Br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Christie|1hxb9|2004 ABCA 287 (CanLII)}}{{perABCA|Sullivan J}}{{atL|1hxb9|37}}<Br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Phun|2dfn2|1997 ABCA 344 (CanLII)|209 AR 266}}{{perABCA|McFadyen JA}}{{atL|2dfn2|35}}<Br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Ferguson|2dcz8|1996 ABCA 189 (CanLII)|184 AR 157}}{{perABCA|Cairns JA}}<Br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Latest revision as of 10:33, 26 July 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2014. (Rev. # 95963) |
General Principles
A "starting point" for sentences are set as guides and are factors to consider the appropriate sentence. They are meant to achieve greater uniformity and consistency. They are "most useful in circumstances where there is a large disparity between sentences imposed."[1]
Generalized offences with a "myriad of factual underpinnings" have been rejected as having a fixed "starting point."[2]
The "starting point" is an effective mid-point within the range of sentence for the offence. [3]
A starting point of sentence will be raised and lowered after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on sentence.[4]
A starting point cannot be artificially lowered by examination into prior case law that shows lower sentences than the designated "starting point" and deem it to be the "correct" starting point. [5]
A judge would does not mention starting points in sentence where one exists is not committing an error in principle.[6]
Starting points assume the accused is of good character with no record.[7]
- ↑ R v McDonnell, 1997 CanLII 389 (SCC), [1997] SCJ No 42, per Sopinka J
- ↑
e.g. R v Jefferson, 2008 ABCA 365 (CanLII), 238 CCC (3d) 53, per Berger JA
- ↑
McDonnell, supra, at para 60 (“... The starting point may be viewed as the mid-point in the traditional range of sentences for a particular sort of crime.”
- ↑ R v Ostertag, 2000 ABCA 232 (CanLII), 83 Alta LR (3d) 20, per Viet J
- ↑ R v Marchesi, 2009 ABCA 304 (CanLII), 460 AR 294, per curiam, at para 7
- ↑
R v Lee, 2012 ABCA 17 (CanLII), 290 CCC (3d) 506, per Berger JA, at para 58
R v Stone, 1999 CanLII 688 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 290, per Bastarache J
R v Wells, 2000 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 207, 141 CCC (3d) 368, per Iacobucci J
R v LM, 2008 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 163, per Lebel J
- ↑
McDonnell, supra at para 59
R v Lau, 2004 ABCA 408 (CanLII), 193 CCC (3d) 51, per Hunt JA, at paras 29, 31 ("The starting point cases are based on the assumption that the offender is of previous good character. While the presence of a record is treated as aggravating, the absence of one is not mitigating. ")
R v Sandercock, 1985 ABCA 218 (CanLII), 62 AR 382, 22 CCC (3d) 79, per Kerans JA, at para 17
R v Christie, 2004 ABCA 287 (CanLII), per Sullivan J, at para 37
R v Phun, 1997 ABCA 344 (CanLII), 209 AR 266, per McFadyen JA, at para 35
R v Ferguson, 1996 ABCA 189 (CanLII), 184 AR 157, per Cairns JA