|
Criminal - Sentencing - Proportionality. R. v. Habib
In R. v. Habib (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the sentencing principle of 'proportionality':[35] These principles also respect Parliament’s direction to impose proportionate sentences. As Hamilton held, at para. 91, proportionality requires courts to consider factors that “decrease the offender’s personal responsibility.” For young adults, immaturity is one such factor. While as adults they are morally responsible for their actions, “[f]ull maturity and all the attributes of adulthood are not magically conferred on young [adults] on their 18th birthdays.” See R. v. Clarke, [2018] EWCA Crim 185, [2018] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 52, at para. 5. Instead, young adults are more impulsive, emotionally volatile, and susceptible to negative influences and bad judgment. This can make them less blameworthy than more mature adults. See R. v. Scott, 2015 ABCA 99, 28 Alta. L.R. (6th) 78, at para. 13; Fournier c. R., 2012 QCCA 1330, at paras. 42-45. By accounting for immaturity, courts ensure that turning 18 “does not present a cliff edge for … sentencing.” See Clarke, at para. 5; see also Bertrand Marchand, at para. 132; R. v. Leask (1996), 1996 CanLII 17936 (MB CA), 113 Man. R. (2d) 265 (C.A.), at para. 3.
[36] Proportionality also requires considering the greater impact of incarceration on young adults. See Hills, at para. 135. Incarceration disrupts a transitional stage where they should be “developing … job prospects and relationships that provide the base for a productive life” and learning pro-social skills and values from positive mentors and peers. See R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2, 316 Nfld. &. P.E.I.R. 211, at para. 107. Each year is felt more keenly during this critical period of transition. See R. v. Lai, 2006 BCCA 368, 229 B.C.A.C. 236, at para. 104. . R. v. R.S.
In R. v. R.S. (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered 'proportionality' as a sentencing principle:The requirement of proportionality
[26] Proportionality means that a sentence is “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: Criminal Code, s. 718.1. As Lacasse instructs, at para. 53, proportionality is determined both on an individual basis – considering the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the particular offender – and having regard to sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Proportionality demands that individualization and parity be reconciled. . R. v. Simeunovich
In R. v. Simeunovich (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered criminal sentencing 'proportionality':Proportionality and parity
[16] The sentencing judge properly instructed himself that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. As the Supreme Court of Canada instructed in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 411 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 10, proportionality is the organizing principle in reaching the goal of a fair, fit, and principled sanction for a specific case; the principles of parity and individualization, while important, are secondary principles.
|
