The Supreme Court has ruled that a portion of the Criminal Code, which allows for repeated 25-year parole ineligibility terms in cases involving multiple first-degree murders, is unconstitutional.
On January 29, 2017, Alexandre Bissonnette entered the Great Mosque of Québec, armed with firearms, and opened fire on the worshippers. Tragically, six individuals lost their lives, and five others suffered serious injuries. He pleaded guilty to all charges, including six counts of first-degree murder during his trial.
In Canada, the penalty for first-degree murder is life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years. When someone is found guilty of multiple first-degree murders, each murder receives the same 25-year parole ineligibility sentence. Typically, these sentences are served concurrently. However, at trial, the Crown prosecutor requested the application of section 745.51 of the Criminal Code. This provision allows for consecutive, rather than concurrent, periods of parole ineligibility for each murder conviction. Consequently, the accused could have faced six consecutive 25-year terms of parole ineligibility, totaling 150 years. The accused argued that this provision was unconstitutional. The trial judge agreed and sentenced the accused to serve five of the 25-year terms concurrently, along with an additional 15 years for the sixth first-degree murder, resulting in a total of 40 years of parole ineligibility.
The accused appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which also found the provision unconstitutional but ordered the accused to serve the six terms concurrently, leading to 25 years of ineligibility. The Crown then appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, declared that section 745.51 of the Criminal Code violates section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a manner that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. Section 12 guarantees the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, aiming to protect human dignity and uphold a person's sense of worth.
A life sentence with no realistic chance of release implies that the accused is beyond redemption and incapable of rehabilitation. Such a notion is degrading and incompatible with human dignity, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. The Chief Justice emphasized that section 745.51 undermines the fundamental principles of Canadian criminal law by depriving convicts of any hope of reintegrating into society.
In light of this decision, Chief Justice Wagner deemed section 745.51 unconstitutional since its enactment in 2011. Consequently, the law that was in effect before that date remains applicable. This means that the accused must serve a total of 25 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
Comments
Post a Comment