In R. v. Smith (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the sentencing concept of a 'true crime':
[5] The principal error made by the sentencing judge revolves around the view that she took regarding the seriousness of the firearms offences involved. That view appears to have been driven by her conclusion that the facts did not “satisfy a ‘true crime’ characterization”. In our view, the sentencing judge misunderstood the concept of a true crime characterization in the sentencing context. That concept was discussed in R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401 paras. 51-52 and 144, aff’d 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773. Properly understood, it was intended to draw a distinction between a true crime and what might simply be a regulatory infraction that happens to be caught as a criminal offence because of the wording of the Criminal Code.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
