| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 728 2020 SLD 728 2020 SCMR 765 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided on 02-04-2020, hearing Date : 16-10-2019 (On appealfrom the Court of Appeal for Manitoba)
WAGNER C.J., ABELLA, MOLDAVER, KARAKATSANIS, C.T, BROWN, ROWE, MARTIN AND KASIRER, J
(On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Manitoba)Rekha Malaviya and Ren e Lagimodi re for the Appellant.Gerri Wiebe and Ryan McElhoes for the
Respondent.Lisa Joyal, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.John R.W. Caldwell, for the int
Decided on 02-04-2020, hearing Date : 16-10-2019 (On appealfrom the Court of Appeal for Manitoba)
WAGNER C.J., ABELLA, MOLDAVER, KARAKATSANIS, C.T, BROWN, ROWE, MARTIN AND KASIRER, J
(On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Manitoba)Rekha Malaviya and Ren e Lagimodi re for the Appellant.Gerri Wiebe and Ryan McElhoes for the
Respondent.Lisa Joyal, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.John R.W. Caldwell, for the int
HER MAJESTY THE QUEENVSJUSTYN KYLE NAPOLEON FRIESENANDATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERALOF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, CRIMINAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ALBERTAINTERVENERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Sentence--- Sentencing range--- Appellate Court, powers of---Sentence imposed by Trial Court---Interference by Appellate Court---Grounds---Appellate Court could only intervene in sentence imposed by Trial Court if such sentence was demonstrably unfit, or, the sentencing judge made an error in principle that had an impact on the sentence---Appellate courts should give sentencing judges the tools to depart from past precedents and provide appropriate sentences when a body of precedent no longer responded to society's current understanding and awareness of the gravity of a particular offence and blameworthiness of particular offenders or to the legislative initiatives of Parliament---However, appellate courts could not interpret or apply the standard of review to enforce ranges or starting points of sentences, as doing so would be to usurp the role of Parliament in creating categories of offences. Appellate courts must generally defer to sentencing judges' decisions and could only intervene to vary a sentence if the sentence was demonstrably unfit, or, the sentencing judge made an error in principle that had an impact on the sentence. Errors in principle included an error of law, a failure to consider a relevant factor, or erroneous consideration of an aggravating or mitigating factor. If appellate intervention was justified, the court would apply the principles of sentencing afresh to the facts, without deference to the existing sentence, even if that sentence fell within the applicable range. Where an appellate court had found that an error in principle had an impact on the sentence, it was not a further precondition to appellate intervention that the existing sentence was demonstrably unfit or fell outside the range of sentences imposed in the past. R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089 at para 48; R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, at para. 46 and R. v. McKnight (1999), 135 C.C.C. (3d) 41 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 35 ref. Appellate courts had a dual role in sentence appeals; they corrected errors in sentencing to ensure both that the principles of sentencing were correctly applied and that sentences were not demonstrably…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492