R v Bissonnette

Last updated
R v Bissonnette
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 24, 2022
Judgment: May 27, 2022
Full case nameHer Majesty The Queen and Attorney General of Quebec v Alexandre Bissonnette
Citations 2022 SCC 23
Docket No.39544 [1]
Prior historyJudgment for defendant in the Court of Appeal for Quebec
Holding
Section 745.51 of the Criminal Code violates Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is of no force or effect
Court membership
Chief Justice Richard Wagner
Puisne Justices Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown, Malcolm Rowe, Sheilah Martin, Nicholas Kasirer, Mahmud Jamal
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Wagner CJ

R v Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 is a landmark [2] decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that life sentences without a realistic possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court unanimously struck down section 745.51 of the Criminal Code , which gave sentencing judges the discretion to stack periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders, for violating Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [3] [4] [5] [6]

Contents

The case arose in the sentencing for Quebec mosque shooter Alexandre Bissonnette and drew heavy media attention. [7] [8] [9]

Background

Life sentences in Canada

In Canada, life imprisonment exists as a criminal sentence for certain offences, and is mandatory for the offences of murder and high treason. An offender may apply for parole after serving a parole ineligibility period of 25 years for first-degree murder and high treason, and a judge-determined period between 10 and 25 years for second-degree murder. The mandatory sentences for murder have been upheld by the Supreme Court in R v Luxton and R v Latimer , for first and second degree murder respectively. [10] [11]

In 2011, Parliament passed the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, the Act enacted section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which gave sentencing judges the discretion to order that parole ineligibility periods for multiple murders be served consecutively. So if an offender was convicted of two first-degree murders, for example, the sentencing judge could order that the 25 year parole ineligibility periods for both murders be stacked for a combined ineligibility period of 50 years. [12]

Section 12 of the Charter

Section 12 of Charter states:

Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

In section 12 jurisprudence, this guarantee has developed into a prohibition against two classes of punishment. Firstly, certain types of extreme punishments that are always incompatible with human dignity, such as corporal punishment, torture, or castration. And secondly, those types of punishments that are not in of themselves incompatible with human dignity, but nonetheless can become cruel and unusual if their duration or extent is grossly disproportionate to the appropriate sentence, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and offender's degree of responsibility. The latter prong of section 12 is used to challenge mandatory minimums, but the Supreme Court has upheld the mandatory sentences for murder. [11]

Factual background

On the evening of January 29, 2017, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette entered the prayer hall at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, a mosque in the Sainte-Foy neighbourhood of Quebec City and opened fire for about two minutes with a 9mm Glock pistol. Six worshippers were killed and five others seriously injured in one of the worst mass shootings in Canadian history. He turned himself in by calling 911 approximately 20 minutes later, after initially fleeing the scene in a car. Bissonnette would plead guilty to six counts of first degree murder, and six counts of attempted murder. The case was highly publicized and sparked a conversation on Islamophobia in Quebec and Canadian society. [13]

In lower courts

At trial, the Crown asked for all the murder sentences to be served consecutively pursuant to section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, for a total parole ineligibility period of 150 years. Bissonnette, for his part, brought a constitutional challenge to sec. 745.51, under section 12 of the Charter. The trial judge held that while Bissonnette's crimes were serious, a 150-year parole ineligibility period was far too excessive. He held that an appropriate parole ineligibility period for the offender in the case would be between 35 and 42 years, but noted that the provision restricted him to at least 50 years of ineligibility if he were to order any of the sentences to run consecutively. [3] : paras 12–19 

Ultimately the trial judge held that the gravity of Bissonnette's offence necessitated a sentence greater than the baseline 25 years of ineligibility, but that the 50-year period would be grossly disproportionate as applied to him, and thus constitute cruel and unusual punishment. After finding the provision to be unconstitutional, he turned to question of remedy, holding that sentencing discretion could be read into the provision as an appropriate remedy. He then sentenced Bissonnette to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 40 years. [3] : paras 12–19 

Both the Crown and Bissonnette appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which ultimately granted Bissonnette's appeal and rejected the Crown's. The Court agreed with the trial judge that the provision was unconstitutional, but held that reading in discretion was too intrusive of a remedy and that he should have instead struck the provision down. It in turn reduced Bissonnette's sentence to one of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. [3] : paras 20 & 24 

Judgment

Chief justice Richard Wagner, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the Crown's appeal and held section 745.51 to be unconstitutional. He began his reasons by recounting the two prongs of section 12, one which protects against grossly disproportionate punishment, and the other that forecloses that narrow class of punishments that are so intrinsically at odds with human dignity that they can never be imposed. He held that a punishment that is caught by the latter prong will always necessarily be grossly disproportionate, so it is not necessary to analyze it in terms of gross disproportionality after such a finding is made. He also held that even though sentencing judges have discretion to not stack parole ineligibility periods under section 745.51, the mere fact that it authorizes such a punishment will be enough to render the section unconstitutional, should a finding be made that the power can be exercised in a manner that engages the latter prong. [3] : paras 59–70 

The Court held that a life sentence that deprives an offender from the onset of any realistic possibility of release falls within the narrow class of punishments that can never be imposed under the Charter. The Court held that such a punishment is intrinsically at odds with human dignity because it pre-supposes that an offender is beyond redemption and lacks the moral autonomy to rehabilitate themselves. Wagner CJ emphasized that while it was open to Parliament to deprioritize the sentencing objective of rehabilitation compared to other sentencing objectives for certain offences, what it could not to do was eradicate it completely. The door to rehabilitation must always remain open, even where it is of minimal importance relative to other sentencing objectives. The Court also noted that Parliament had already deprioritized rehabilitation to other sentencing objectives for first degree murder by a setting a parole ineligibility period of 25 years, which though constitutional was also longer than many of Canada's counterparts in the developed world. [3] : paras 81–98 

The Court also emphasized the psychological effects of such a sentence, holding that offenders deprived of any opportunity of release have no incentive to improve themselves and live a futile existence. It noted the crushing psychological effect of being isolated from loved ones and the outside world, while knowing that nothing you could ever do would let you break that isolation. The Court also noted how many offenders faced with such a predicament wish to end their own lives to break the apparently endless suffering. The Court held that these effects further support the conclusion that a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is fundamentally incompatible with human dignity. [3] : paras 81–98 

Reception

Leaders in Quebec's Muslim community expressed disappointment with the decision. [7] The National Council of Canadian Muslims said that the decision would reopen wounds for the attack's survivors and families of the victims. Justice minister David Lametti said that while the government had supported the law, they would respect the ruling and review its implications, while also acknowledging the hurt and anger rekindled by the decision. [14] The opposition Conservative party immediately called on the government to explore legislative options in response to the ruling. The NDP concurred, saying while they respected the ruling, the government still had the responsibility to explore its options. Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, under whose government the law was enacted, expressed his disappointment with the ruling. Pierre Poilievre, the front-runner in the 2022 Conservative leadership election, said that he would invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the decision. Had that happened, it would have been the first time in Canadian history that the clause was invoked by the federal government. [15]

The decision was also criticized by some media editorials as devaluing the lives of the victims, and as judicial activism, [16] [17] [18] while others defended it as a just limitation on the retributive power of the state. [19] [20] [21] Families of victims in other cases where the stacking provision had already been used or was expected to be used also sharply criticized the decision. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted criminals are to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment are extremely serious and usually violent. Examples of these crimes are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, illegal drug trade, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated property damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, theft, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parole</span> Provisional release of a prisoner who agrees to certain conditions

Parole is a form of early release of a prison inmate where the prisoner agrees to abide by behavioral conditions, including checking-in with their designated parole officers, or else they may be rearrested and returned to prison.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972). Justice Brennan's dissent famously argued that "The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity ... An executed person has indeed 'lost the right to have rights.'"

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5–4 decision overruled Stanford v. Kentucky, in which the court had upheld execution of offenders at or above age 16, and overturned statutes in 25 states.

The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628, was a landmark case in the state of California that outlawed capital punishment for nine months until the enactment of a constitutional amendment reinstating it, Proposition 17.

Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case R. v. Smith (1987), in which it was partially defined, and R. v. Latimer (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer protested that his long, mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter was cruel and unusual.

Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), was the first case since the moratorium on capital punishment was lifted in the United States in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a minor on grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment." The holding in Thompson was expanded on by Roper v. Simmons (2005), where the Supreme Court extended the "evolving standards" rationale to those under 18 years old.

<i>R v Smith</i> (1987) Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Court struck down a mandatory seven-year sentence requirement for the importation of drugs as a violation of the right against cruel and unusual punishment contrary to section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In judicial practice, back-to-back life sentences, also called consecutive life sentences, are two or more consecutive life sentences given to a convicted felon. This practice is used to ensure the felon will never be released from prison.

The "faint hope clause" is the popular name for s.745.6 of the Canadian Criminal Code, a statutory provision that allows prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment with a parole eligibility period of greater than 15 years to apply for early parole once they have served 15 years. Offenders who committed their offence after December 2, 2011 are no longer eligible to apply for the faint hope clause. However, those convicted of offences that occurred prior to that date may still be eligible.

In the United States, life imprisonment is the most severe punishment provided by law in states with no valid capital punishment statute, and second-most in those with a valid statute. According to a 2013 study, 1 of every 2 000 inhabitants of the U.S. were imprisoned for life as of 2012.

Scott Allen Hain was the last person executed in the United States for crimes committed as a juvenile. Hain was executed by Oklahoma for a double murder–kidnapping he committed when he was 17 years old.

Life imprisonment in Canada is a criminal sentence for certain offences that lasts for the offender’s life. Parole is possible, but even if paroled, the offender remains under the supervision of Corrections Canada for their lifetime, and can be returned to prison for parole violations.

In Canada, homicide is the act of causing death to another person through any means, directly or indirectly. Homicide can either be culpable or non-culpable, with the former being unlawful under a category of offences defined in the Criminal Code, a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada that applies uniformly across the country. Murder is the most serious category of culpable homicide, the others being manslaughter and infanticide.

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses.

<i>Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor</i> Singapore Supreme Court case

Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor was a seminal case decided in 2010 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which, in response to a challenge by Yong Vui Kong, a convicted drug smuggler, held that the mandatory death penalty imposed by the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA") for certain drug trafficking offences does not infringe Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The ruling applied even to those persons who had committed murder as a juvenile, extending beyond Graham v. Florida (2010), which had ruled juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional for crimes excluding murder.

<i>R v Nur</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15, is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quebec City mosque shooting</span> 2017 mass shooting in Quebec, Canada

The Quebec City mosque shooting was an attack by a single gunman on the evening of January 29, 2017, at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, a mosque in the Sainte-Foy neighbourhood of Quebec City, Canada. Six worshippers were killed and five others seriously injured after evening prayers when the gunman entered the prayer hall shortly before 8:00 pm and opened fire for about two minutes with a 9mm Glock pistol. Approximately 40 people were reported present at the time of the shooting.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 39544 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ "SCC strikes down law which authorized life without parole for those convicted of multiple murders - Law360 Canada". www.law360.ca. Retrieved 2024-05-20.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R v Bissonnette, Supreme Court of CanadaSCC 23 (Supreme Court of CanadaMay 27, 2022).
  4. ↑ "Case in Brief: R. v. Bissonnette" (PDF). Supreme Court of Canada. May 27, 2022. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 3, 2022. Retrieved 2022-10-25.
  5. ↑ "Canada supreme court rules life without parole is 'cruel' and unconstitutional". The Guardian website. 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  6. ↑ Fine, Sean (2022-05-27). "Supreme Court of Canada unanimously strikes down life without parole for mass murderers". The Globe and Mail website. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  7. 1 2 Nerestant, Antoni (2022-05-27). "Quebec City mosque shooter must get chance at parole after 25 years, Supreme Court rules". CBC News website. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  8. ↑ "Supreme Court rules Quebec City mosque killer to be eligible for parole in 25 years". CTV News Montreal website. 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  9. ↑ Bronskill, Jim. "Quebec City mosque shooter Alexandre Bissonnette can apply for parole after 25 years". Global News. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  10. ↑ Legislative Services Branch (2022-01-16). "Section 745 of the Criminal Code". Department of Justice website. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  11. 1 2 "Charterpedia - Section 12 – Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment". Department of Justice website. 1999-11-09. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  12. ↑ Fine, Sean (2014-05-06). "Five fundamental ways Harper has changed the justice system". The Globe and Mail website. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  13. ↑ "Quebec City Mosque Shooting". The Canadian Encyclopedia website. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  14. ↑ "Canadian Supreme Court rules all killers must have chance at parole". Washington Post website. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  15. ↑ Tumilty, Ryan (2022-05-27). "Liberals to 'review' Supreme Court decision on mass murders, but will respect ruling". National Post website. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  16. ↑ "Supreme Court ruling devalues lives of most of mosque shooter's victims". Toronto Star website. 2022-05-29. ISSN   0319-0781 . Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  17. ↑ Cosh, Colby (2022-05-28). "Colby Cosh: Supreme Court gives mass murderers an unwelcome reprieve". National Post website. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  18. ↑ "EDITORIAL: High court ruling favours mass murderers". torontosun. Retrieved 2022-06-02.
  19. ↑ Andrew Coyne (2022-06-01). "Opinion: We can no more force a prisoner to serve 150 years than we can execute him six times". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2022-06-02.
  20. ↑ Kerr, Lisa (2022-05-27). "Opinion: The Supreme Court's ruling to end the death-in-prison penalty isn't about the offender – it's about our own moral code". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2022-06-02.
  21. ↑ "Parole decision restores balance to sentencing". Winnipeg Free Press. 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-06-02.
  22. ↑ "Families of Ontario murder victims outraged at Supreme Court ruling". CTV News Toronto website. 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.