R v Wells

Last updated
R v Wells

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: February 23, 1991
Judgment: May 27, 2000
Full case nameJames Warren Wells v Her Majesty The Queen
Citations [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207
Ruling Appeal dismissed
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Iacobucci J.

R v Wells [1] 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 .

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Criminal Code</i> (Canada)

The Criminal Code is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law". Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the sole jurisdiction of Parliament over criminal law in Canada.

<i>R v Gladue</i>

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. s. 718.2(e) directs the courts to take into account the history of the offender, "with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders", and also directs the courts to seek, "all available sanctions, other than imprisonment".

Contents

Background

The offender was attending a house party where he assaulted an 18-year-old girl while she was sleeping. The offender was convicted. At the sentencing hearing he asked for a conditional sentence, citing s 718.2(3) of the Criminal Code, which directs that sentencing courts should take the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders into account when considering whether to give a non-custodial sentence. [2] The trial judge agreed that the court must take into account the offender's Aboriginal heritage, but held that the sentence could not be served in the community since it would not provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the sentence. [3]

Conditional sentences are sentences expressing factual implications, or hypothetical situations and their consequences. They are so called because the validity of the main clause of the sentence is conditional on the existence of certain circumstances, which may be expressed in a dependent clause or may be understood from the context.

Reasons of the Court

Justice Iacobucci for a unanimous court held that where the severity of the offence increases, the applicability of s. 718.2(e) decreases. For crimes of violence and where the offender is a substantial risk to the community, the offender should receive a sentence substantially similar to non-Aboriginal offenders.

See also

Related Research Articles

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they comply with the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

<i>Youth Criminal Justice Act</i>

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.

<i>Juvenile Delinquents Act</i>

The Juvenile Delinquents Act, SC 1908, c 40 was a law passed by the Parliament of Canada to improve its handling of juvenile crime. The act established procedures for the handling of juvenile offenses, including the government assuming control of juvenile offenders. It was revised in 1929 and superseded in 1984 by the Young Offenders Act.

<i>R v Morgentaler</i>

R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

In Canada and England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of preventive detention in order to protect the public.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States 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.

<i>R v Vaillancourt</i>

R v Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636, is a landmark case from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Criminal Code concept of "constructive murder". The Court ruled that crimes with significant "stigma" attached, such as murder, require proof of the mens rea element of subjective foresight of death, and therefore the provision of the Criminal Code for constructive murder was unconstitutional.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a new crime who was previously convicted of a crime(s). Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by the state for public offences. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

<i>R v Stone</i>

R v Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of the defence of automatism in a criminal trial.

Collateral consequences of criminal conviction are the additional civil state penalties, mandated by statute, that attach to criminal convictions. They are not part of the direct consequences of criminal conviction, such as prison, fines, or probation. They are the further civil actions by the state that are triggered as a consequence of the conviction.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

The Youth Justice Court of the Northern Territory is an Australian court which hears and determines cases concerning crimes committed by children under the age of 18 years in the Northern Territory.

Criminal sentencing in Canada

In Canada, the criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, a federal statute. The Criminal Code includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentences.

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. Gladue was the first case to challenge section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

Code of Criminal Procedure (India)

The Code of Criminal Procedure is the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. Additionally, it also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

The totality principle is a common law principle which applies when a court imposes multiple sentences of imprisonment. The principle was first formulated by David Thomas in his 1970 study of the sentencing decisions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales:

<i>R v Nur</i>

R v Nur2015 SCC 15 is a Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences.

References