R v Gladue

R v Gladue
R v Gladue
	Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: April 23, 1999 ; Judgment: December 19, 1999
Full case name	Jamie Tanis Gladue v Her Majesty the Queen
Citations	[1999] 1 SCR 688
Ruling	Appeal dismissed
Court membership
	Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer ; Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by	Cory and Iacobucci JJ
	McLachlin and Major JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
	Criminal Code, s. 718.2(e)

Last updated June 05, 2023

R v Gladue is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the sentencing principles that are outlined under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. That provision, enacted by Parliament in 1995, directs the courts to take into consideration "all available sanctions, other than imprisonment" for all offenders. It adds that the courts are to pay "particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders".

Gladue was the first case where the Supreme Court considered the interpretation and application of this provision. It upheld the three year sentence for manslaughter which the sentencing judge gave to Gladue, but also set out factors which the sentencing courts are to take into account in applying s. 718.2(e).

In the years since the decision, sentencing judges have directed that to assist in sentencing Indigenous offenders, pre-sentencing reports be prepared to assess the factors which the Supreme Court has identified as being considered under s. 718.2(1(e). That type of report has become known as a "Gladue report."

In 2012, in R v Ipeelee , the Supreme Court confirmed the basic principles it had set out in R v Gladue.

1995 Amendments to the Criminal Code

In 1995, the federal government introduced major changes to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. As part of that review, the package included amendments that responded to the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the correctional systems of Canada. At that time, Indigenous peoples amounted to approximately 18% of the total of incarcerated individuals, but were only 3% of the total population of Canada, an over-representation of more than 5 times their total population.^[1]

The amendments included a new provision setting out general sentencing principles. The relevant provision was the new s. 718.2(1)(e):

Other sentencing principles
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
...
(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.^[2]

Facts of the case

On September 16, 1995, Jamie Tanis Gladue, a young Indigenous woman, was celebrating her birthday with some friends in Nanaimo, British Columbia. She suspected that her boyfriend was having an affair with her older sister. Following a confrontation, her boyfriend repeatedly insulted Gladue, at which point she stabbed him in the chest. He died. At the time of the stabbing, Gladue had a blood alcohol level of between 155 and 165 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.^[3]

Lower court decisions

Gladue was originally charged with second degree murder, but pled guilty to manslaughter, with the consent of the Crown prosecutor, on the basis that there was evidence of provocation. The main issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed. She was sentenced to three years imprisonment.^[4]

At Gladue's sentencing hearing, the sentencing judge took into account both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the absence of any serious criminal history. However, the sentencing judge did not take into account any factors specifically relating to Gladue's Indigenous background.^[3] The sentencing judge also held that s. 718.2(e) did not apply to Indigenous people who were off-reserve. The British Columbia Court of Appeal disagreed with the sentencing judge on that point, but by a 2-1 judgment, upheld the sentence.^[4] Both the sentencing judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal held that the offence was a serious one, and that a three year sentence was appropriate in any event, even if the Indigenous background were taken into account.^[4]

Reasons of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence of three years, but reviewed the factors which should be considered in the new sentencing provision, s. 718.2(e). Justices Cory and Iacobucci held that the courts below erred in taking an overly narrow approach of s. 718.2(e). The purpose of this provision is to address the historical and current problem with the severe over-representation of Indigenous people within the criminal justice system.

Gladue was not on reserve land at the time of the offence and therefore the sentencing judge held that s. 718.2(e) did not apply. The Supreme Court held that was a mistake by the sentencing court. The Court held that s. 718.2(e) applies to "all aboriginal persons wherever they reside, whether on- or off-reserve, in a large city or a rural area".^[3]

Gladue reports

Following the Supreme Court decision, sentencing courts began requiring pre-sentencing reports for aboriginal offenders, to specifically report on the factors which the Supreme Court held were required by s. 718.2(e), which Parliament had enacted in an attempt to lower the severe over-representation of Indigenous people within the Canadian criminal justice system. These reports became known as Gladue reports. Some of the items included in Gladue reports include the tragic history, cultural oppression, poverty, abuse suffered and residential school attendance of the Indigenous offender.^[5]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Canada</span>

The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.

<i>Youth Criminal Justice Act</i> Canadian statute

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a Canadian statute, which came into effect on April 1, 2003. It covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences. The Act replaced the Young Offenders Act, which itself was a replacement for the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is awarded only in the 'rarest of cases'.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Aboriginal Community Court, or Aboriginal court was the name given to the specialised courts dealing with Indigenous Australian offenders in the state of Western Australia between 2006 and 2015.

R v DB, 2008 SCC 25 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on youth justice and sentencing. The Court held the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that required presumptive adult sentences for youth convicted of certain offences to be unconstitutional. Ruling that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness for young persons was a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the impugned provisions unconstitutionally deprived them of their liberty by presuming their moral blameworthiness to be equivalent to adults.

Bail in Canada refers to the release of a person charged with a criminal offence prior to being tried in court or sentenced. The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. That right is implemented by the Criminal Code, which provides several ways for a person to be released prior to a court appearance. A person may be released by a peace officer or by the courts. A release by the courts is officially known as a judicial interim release. There are also a number of ways to compel a person's appearance in court without the need for an arrest and release.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

A Gladue report is a type of pre-sentencing and bail hearing report that a Canadian court can request when considering sentencing an offender of Aboriginal background under Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

R v Wells is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to sentencing principles set out in s 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, relating to Aboriginal offenders. The decision clarified the principles set out in the Court's earlier decision in R v Gladue.

The judiciary of New Zealand is responsible for the system of courts that interprets and applies the laws of New Zealand. It has four primary functions: to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution; to deliver authoritative rulings on the meaning and application of legislation; to develop case law; and to uphold the rule of law, personal liberty and human rights. The judiciary is supported in its work by an executive department, the Ministry of Justice.

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

Indigenous peoples in Canada are significantly overrepresented in the Canadian justice system. They make up approximately 30 per cent of all incarcerated individuals in Canada despite being approximately 4 per cent of the total population. Explanations for this overrepresentation include historical injustices – and the contemporary outcomes which are results of that history – faced by Indigenous peoples, as well as structural issues within the current criminal justice system itself. These issues include over-policing, ineffective representation in court, inadequate application of bail, and over-sentencing, which are all indications of systemic racism. While these issues affect Indigenous peoples broadly, there are specific implications for Indigenous women and youth.

Criminal sentencing in Canada is governed by the Canadian Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, along with the Supreme Court of Canada, have distinguished the treatment of Indigenous individuals within the Canadian Criminal Sentencing Regime.

R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.

Settler colonialism in Canada is the continuation and the results of the colonization of the assets of the Indigenous peoples in Canada. As colonization progressed, the Indigenous peoples were subject to policies of forced assimilation and cultural genocide. The policies signed many of which were designed to both allowed stable houses. Governments in Canada in many cases ignored or chose to deny the aboriginal title of the First Nations. The traditional governance of many of the First Nations was replaced with government-imposed structures. Many of the Indigenous cultural practices were banned. First Nation's people status and rights were less than that of settlers. The impact of colonization on Canada can be seen in its culture, history, politics, laws, and legislatures.

Accounts of the Indigenous law governing dispute resolution in the area now called Ontario, Canada, date from the early to mid-17th century. French civil law courts were created in Canada, the colony of New France, in the 17th century, and common law courts were first established in 1764. The territory was then known as the province of Quebec.

R v Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 is a landmark 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.

References

↑ "Adult Correctional Services in Canada, 1995-96" Micheline Reed and Peter Morrison, Juristat – Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE Vol. 17 no. 4.
↑ Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c. C-46, s. 718.2(1) , as enacted by SC 1995, c. 22, s. 6.
1 2 3 R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688.
1 2 3 R v Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA).
↑ "English | Gladue Sentencing Principles". gladueprinciples.editmy.website. Retrieved 2018-12-03.

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.

[1] "Adult Correctional Services in Canada, 1995-96" Micheline Reed and Peter Morrison, Juristat – Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE Vol. 17 no. 4.

[2] Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c. C-46, s. 718.2(1) , as enacted by SC 1995, c. 22, s. 6.

[SCC-3] 1 2 3 R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688.

[BCCA-4] 1 2 3 R v Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA).

[5] "English | Gladue Sentencing Principles". gladueprinciples.editmy.website. Retrieved 2018-12-03.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]