|
Criminal - Sentencing - Public Policy. R. v. Chizanga
In R. v. Chizanga (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a murder appeal on all the advanced arguments. Here the court considers public policy comments in sentencing:(d) The trial judge’s remarks on gun violence did not detract from the principles of sentencing
[131] The trial judge addressed the broader societal context of gun violence at the start of his reasons. He stated:The ease of killing with a gun, as the last decades in North American have sadly shown, is an exigent danger to us all. It is difficult to understand how such a grave threat to our well-being can be allowed to continue. We have become numb to the terrible consequences. Inundation of information about mass shootings and the almost daily prevalence of horrifying news about gun deaths dulls our senses. Description of the details of individual cases is an important antidote to wake us from our complacency. [132] Subsequently, the trial judge referred to this case as “a poster child for the evil of military assault type weapons” and observed that the original sentencing hearing in this case took place on the 30th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, also carried out with a semi-automatic military-style long firearm.
[133] The trial judge also opined on the need for greater firearm regulation, adding, “[f]rom the perspective of our criminal law and our communities, firearm control and regulation is imperative to reduce the carnage. In Canada we do not have the obstacle posed in the United States by the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the United States Supreme [Court] in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).”
[134] Mr. Meredith asserts that the trial judge erred in aggravating the sentence based on the social ills of gun violence. According to Mr. Meredith, the trial judge’s comments bordered on “sermonizing” and detracted from proportionality as a fundamental principle of sentencing.
[135] The respondent contends that the trial judge’s comments on firearms were not inappropriate and did not result in a disproportionate sentence. The respondent highlights that Mr. Meredith’s use of the firearm in this case was particularly aggravating in the circumstances and it was appropriate for the trial judge to highlight this factor.
[136] In our view, the trial judge’s comments on gun violence did not constitute an error in principle or result in an unfit sentence. The aggravating aspects of the gun violence in the trial judge’s reasons relate directly to the conduct of Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga, and to their moral culpability for the brazen and public nature of the killing of Mr. McIntosh. There is no basis in these comments to conclude that the trial judge was attempting to punish Mr. Meredith merely because of the prevalence of gun violence in society generally.
|
