Sentencing Starting Points: Difference between revisions
m 1 revision imported |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==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". <ref>R v McDonnell [1997] S.C.J. No. 42, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr3d 1997 CanLII 389]</ref> | 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>R v McDonnell [1997] S.C.J. No. 42, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr3d 1997 CanLII 389]{{perSCC| Sopinka J}}</ref> | ||
Generalized offences with a "myriad of factual underpinnings" have been rejected as having a fixed "starting point".<ref> | Generalized offences with a "myriad of factual underpinnings" have been rejected as having a fixed "starting point".<ref> | ||
e.g. R v Jefferson, [http://canlii.ca/t/21cjc | e.g. R v Jefferson, [http://canlii.ca/t/21cjc 2008 ABCA 365] (CanLII){{perABCA|Berger JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
A starting point of sentence will be raised and lowered after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on sentence.<ref> | A starting point of sentence will be raised and lowered after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on sentence.<ref> | ||
R v Ostertag, [http://canlii.ca/t/5rps 2000 ABCA 232] (CanLII) | R v Ostertag, [http://canlii.ca/t/5rps 2000 ABCA 232] (CanLII){{perABCA|Viet J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
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. <ref> | 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. <ref> | ||
R v Marchesi, [http://canlii.ca/t/25q69 2009 ABCA 304] (CanLII) at para 7</ref> | R v Marchesi, [http://canlii.ca/t/25q69 2009 ABCA 304] (CanLII){{TheCourt}} at para 7</ref> | ||
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> | ||
R v Lee, [http://canlii.ca/t/fpp44 2012 ABCA 17] (CanLII) at para 58<br> | R v Lee, [http://canlii.ca/t/fpp44 2012 ABCA 17] (CanLII){{perABCA|Berger JA}} at para 58<br> | ||
R v Stone, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqn2 1999 CanLII 688] (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 290 <br> | R v Stone, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqn2 1999 CanLII 688] (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 290{{perSCC| Bastarache J}} <br> | ||
R v Wells, [http://canlii.ca/t/527n 2000 SCC 10] (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 207 | R v Wells, [http://canlii.ca/t/527n 2000 SCC 10] (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 207{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}<br> | ||
L.M., [http://canlii.ca/t/1x21j 2008 SCC 31] (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 163 <br> | L.M., [http://canlii.ca/t/1x21j 2008 SCC 31] (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 163{{perSCC|Lebel J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 22:21, 15 November 2018
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] S.C.J. No. 42, 1997 CanLII 389, per Sopinka J
- ↑
e.g. R v Jefferson, 2008 ABCA 365 (CanLII), 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), per Viet J
- ↑ R v Marchesi, 2009 ABCA 304 (CanLII), per curiam at para 7
- ↑
R v Lee, 2012 ABCA 17 (CanLII), 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, per Iacobucci J
L.M., 2008 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 163, per Lebel J
- ↑ McDonnell, supra