r v smith 1974

concurred, favoured the attitude ofjudicial deference to the expressed purpose soughtby Parliament. Appellant could not succeed under s. 7 of the Charter. (dissenting) This appeal concerns the question whether s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. On 28th June this year at Woodford Crown Court, David Raymond Smith was convicted of an offence of causing criminal damage contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act. While section 7 sets out broad and general rights which often extend over the same ground as other rights set out in the Charter, it cannot be read so broadly as to render other rights nugatory. was followed by Borins Co. Ct. J. of, . The deterrence of pernicious activities, such as the drug trade, is clearly one of the legitimate purposes of punishment. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. (3d) 129; R. v. Guiller, Ont. Co. Ct.); Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949); Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1959] S.C.R. Facts: The defendant, an assistant at an electrical shop, was asked by an acquaintance to supply goods (16,000) in exchange for two building society cheques that the defendant knew were stolen. The appellant was convicted of two counts of making obscene material, one count of possessing obscene material for distribution, and two counts of distributing obscene material through internet websites. I believe, however, they can be collected and stated more succinctly, as follows: Dealing with the first test, is the punishment of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity? R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. A/810 (1948), at 71) also provide similar protection against cruel or inhuman punishment but, here too, little assistance can be had for the present appeal. 1970, c. N1, ss. It is true that the enactments of Parliament must now be measured against the Charter and, where they do not come within the provisions of the Charter, they may be struck down. S. David Frankel and James A. Wallace, for the respondent. 152, 68 C.C.C. The purpose of a given importation, such as whether it is for personal consumption or for trafficking, and the existence or nonexistence of previous convictions for offences of a similar nature or gravity are disregarded as irrelevant. The object was to reduce drug addiction by making it hazardous and costly to deal in drugs. Abortion is an emotive topic that never fails to inspire a response regardless of gender. When Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. The Charter provision in s. 12 is the device by which the parliamentary discretion as to punishment was to be constitutionally limited. (2d) 337. It brings within the prohibition in s. 12 not only punishment imposed by a court as a sentence, but also treatment (something different from punishment) which may accompany the sentence. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. In 1955 the drug problem in Canada was studied by a Special Committee of the Senate which reported on June 23, 1955. In view of the seriousness of the offence of importing narcotics, the legislative provision of a prison sentence cannot by itself be attacked as going beyond what is necessary to achieve the valid social aim. See F Stark, 'Judicial Development of the Criminal Law by the Supreme Court' (2020) 0 OJLS 1; Zach Leggett, "The New Test for Dishonesty in Criminal Law-Lessons from the Courts of Equity" (2020) 84(1) The J Crim L 37; Karl Laird, Sentencing, at the best of times, is an imprecise and imperfect procedure and there will always be a substantial range of appropriate sentences. (2d) 564 (Ont. 22]. ); Re Mitchell and The Queen, supra; Re Moore and The Queen, supra; Re Konechny (1983), 1983 CanLII 282 (BC CA), 10 C.C.C. (1978), 10. ) He then dishonestly dissipated the credit in his account. For this reason, I cannot find that s. 7 raises any rights or issues not already considered under s. 12. The, In imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the judge will assess the circumstances of the case in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence. Sentences far in excess of seven years are imposed daily in our courts for a variety of offences under the, Since the complaint is solely as to the duration of the minimum sentence provided in s. 5(2), it becomes relevant to consider the length of the sentence as it will be served. ); Re Laporte and The Queen (1972), 1972 CanLII 1209 (QC CS), 8 C.C.C. To this end, attention must be given to the public attitudes concerning a particular sentence history and precedent, legislative attitudes, and the response of juries reflected in their sentencing decisions are to be consulted. In my view, because this result would be appropriate, the sentence cannot be characterized as grossly disproportionate and violative of s. 12. In so doing, the courts will apply the general principles of sentencing accepted in the courts in an effort to make the punishment fit the crime and the individual criminal. In that regard, he quoted a passage from R. v. Konechny, supra, where Macfarlane J.A., said at p. 254: The courts have been given the power under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to review, and in appropriate cases to strike down legislation. Looking for a flexible role? This approach is necessary, in my view, if we are to recognize and give effect to the very special nature of the prohibition contained in, What factors must be considered in deciding whether a given sentence may be categorized as cruel and unusual? I agree, however, with my colleague that s. 12 is not confined to punishments which are in their nature cruel. The courts, the Charter so commands, must examine challenged legislation in order to determine whether it infringes a right protected by the Charter. Thus, despite the constitutional nature of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the command therein to the courts to oversee the constitutionality of our laws, the approach taken when interpreting laws under the Canadian Bill of Rights, has, to some extent, guided the judiciary when considering a constitutional challenge to laws under the Charter. ); R. v. Tobac, supra; R. v. Randall and Weir (1983), 1983 CanLII 3138 (NS CA), 7 C.C.C. I am said to have adopted a disjunctive meaning in my dissent in Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen, 1975 CanLII 927 (BC CA), [1975] 6 W.W.R. While these expressions provide some assistance in defining the concept of arbitrariness, in my view the most important consideration is whether the punishment is authorized by law and imposed in accordance with standards or principles which are rationally connected to the purposes of the legislation. Marshall J. also advanced four reasons for concluding a punishment to be cruel and unusual. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. I am therefore of the opinion that s. 5(2) of the, I am also of the view that the appellant cannot succeed under, By way of summary, I express the view that, For all of the foregoing reasons then, I am unable to find that the minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, mandated by s. 5(2) of the, I have had the benefit of the reasons of my colleague, Justice Lamer, and wish to address briefly what I understand to be the right protected by, Section 12 on its face appears to me to be concerned primarily with the nature or type of a treatment or punishment. Is it such that it has no value in the sense of some social purpose such as reformation, rehabilitation, deterrence or retribution? ) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. R. v. Smith. ); Pearson v. Lecorre, S.C.C., Oct. 3, 1973, unreported; R. v. Hatchwell (1973), 1973 CanLII 1447 (BC CA), 14 C.C.C. Police v Butler [2003] NSWLC 2. Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. It was important to consider the offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971: No offence is committed under Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 1(1) where a person damages property belonging to another if he does so in the honest though mistaken belief that the property is his own.. [para. The expression "cruel and unusual punishment" was first found in the English Bill of Rights of 1688, 1 Wm. This is understandable as at the time this Court had not yet handed down its decision in Re B.C. Although no explicit sexual act was depicted in the audiovisual material, the images included depictions of nude women with their genitalia exposed and with weapons protruding from their bodies. 2200 A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. The Court of Appeal ruled that s. 5(2) was not inconsistent with the Charter and found the sentence imposed to be appropriate. While, again, one may question the wisdom of this conclusion, I cannot agree that this makes the sentencing process arbitrary and, therefore, cruel and unusual in violation of s. 12 of the Charter. That case and others may have to be given limited interpretation in due course if it is concluded that the, Accordingly, I propose to treat the concluding words "but not less than seven years" in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act inoperable as being in contravention of, Smith's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (, , also a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. expressed the view that a conjunctive reading of the words was required, while Laskin C.J., speaking for the minority (Laskin C.J., Spence and Dickson JJ. Is it unusually severe and hence degrading to human dignity and worth? Februar 1975 It shocked the communal conscience. Res. This is not a precise formula for s. 2(b), but I doubt whether a more precise one can be found. Where Do We Look for Guidance?" Smith's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia ((1984), 1984 CanLII 663 (BC CA), 11 C.C.C. 109899 v. : . A summary of his reasons can be found in the following passage at p. 456: To sum up: s. 2 of the Bill of Rights does not prevent the application of s. 214(1) and (2) and s. 218 of the Criminal Code on the ground that the punishment of death prescribed by the Code is a cruel and unusual one, because (1) punishment by death for murder is not unusual in the ordinary and natural meaning of the word; (2) Parliament, when it enacted the amendments to the Code, was of the opinion that the punishment was not an unusual one and the Court cannot substitute its opinion (if it is different) for Parliament's; and (3) Parliament wished its enactment to prevail and by necessary implication excluded the application of s. 2 of the Bill of Rights. At most, the divergence in penalties is an indication that the greater penalty may be excessive, but it will remain necessary to assess the penalty in accordance with the factors discussed above. Absent the minimum, the section still has the potential of operating so as to impose cruel and unusual punishment. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. And by that I mean that they are cruel and unusual in their disproportionality in that no one, not the offender and not the public, could possibly have thought that that particular accused's offence would attract such a penalty. (2d) 556; Re Rojas and The Queen (1978), 1978 CanLII 2309 (ON SC), 40 C.C.C. It provides that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unsatisfied Mr Paton sought to secure the injunction by arguing that his standing to protect his unborn childs right to life was secured under the right to respect for his private and family life in Paton v United Kingdom [1980] 3 EHRR 408. Indeed, the net cast by s. 5(2) for sentencing purposes need not be so wide as that cast by s. 5(1) for conviction purposes. ), at p. 53). Finally, this punishment was imposed in accordance with standards or principles rationally connected to the purposes of the legislation. Subsequently, the court heard Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), which raised the question whether the death penalty for rape was cruel and unusual. Those who import and market hard drugs for lucre are responsible for the gradual but inexorable degeneration of many of their fellow human beings as a result of their becoming drug addicts. I am unable, however, with great respect, to agree with his conclusion that the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not infringe the right guaranteed by s. 12 of the Charter. (9) Is it unusually severe and hence degrading to human dignity and worth? MR. L. GERBER appeared on behalf of the Crown. in Miller and Cockriell, supra. I therefore find arbitrariness a minimal factor in the determination of whether a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual. After pleading guilty before Wetmore Co. Ct.J., the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the sevenyear minimum sentence found in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act as being inconsistent with the provisions of ss. The judges who have considered the case, then, are unanimously of the view that a long sentence of imprisonment is appropriate and no one has suggested that the appellant has been sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment. The minimum term of imprisonment provided for by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act fails the proportionality test and therefore prima facie infringes the guarantees established by s. 12 of the Charter. agreed with Craig J.A., but expanded somewhat on the scope and meaning of s. 9. COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ANDRE SMITH, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 486 as basic to modern day theories of punishment is effectively precluded by the mandatory minimum in s. 5(2). -they believed they had consent from the owner of the property. I have considered whether that should not be sufficient to sustain the validity, on its face, of the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, subject to the power of a court in a particular case to find that the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutionally inapplicable because it would in all the circumstances of the case be cruel and unusual punishment. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. The undisputed fact that the purpose of s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act is constitutionally valid is not a bar to an analysis of s. 5(2) in order to determine if the mandatory minimum sentence will oblige the judge to impose a cruel and unusual punishment and thereby is a prima facie violation of s. 12; if it is, it must be reconsidered under s. 1 as to purpose and any other considerations relevant to determining whether the impugned legislation may be salvaged. (2d) 213 (S.C.C. Held: The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld. Each of the nine members of the United States Supreme Court wrote separate reasons, the majority holding that the imposition of the death penalty under a variety of state statutes constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 1, p. 28, and S. Berger, "The Application of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause under the Canadian Bill of Rights" (1978), 24 McGill L.J. He emphasized the need for a deterrent value in any punishment but affirmed that there were other factors to be considered and weighed against it, at p. 468: In my view, capital punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment if it cannot be shown that its deterrent value outweighs the objections which can be brought against it. 1970, c. C-34, sect. It was not asserted before usnor could it bethat imprisonment, as regulated by Canadian law, is of such character that it would outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity. As indicated above, s. 12 is concerned with the effect of a punishment, and, as such, the process by which the punishment is imposed is not, in my respectful view, of any great relevance to a determination under s. 12. These comments clearly demonstrate that Laskin C.J. It is because of that certainty that I find that the minimum mandatory imprisonment found in s. 5(2) is in violation of s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees to each and every one of us that we shall not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. They failed to diagnose that his lung had been punctured. In that regard, he quoted a passage from, The courts have been given the power under, The correct approach is, in my view, indicated in the passage which I have quoted from Mr. Justice Macfarlane's judgment. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. La Forest J.: While in substantial agreement with Lamer J., nothing was said about the role of arbitrariness in determining whether there has been cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. A sevenyear sentence for drug importation is not per se cruel and unusual. Legislation is arbitrary on its face if it imposes punishment for reasons or in accordance with criteria which are not rationally connected with the objects of the legislation. For reasons I will give later I will address only s. 12 of the Charter. 264 (QB), R. v. Ayotte (J.K.), (1998) 81 O.T.C. Held: The convictions were upheld. Adopting Laskin C.J. Theme by SiteOrigin. and McIntyre, Chouinard*, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ. 171 (Man. Some punishments may be cruel and unusual within the meaning of s. 12 without being arbitrarily imposed while others may be arbitrary within the meaning of s. 9 without also being cruel and unusual. He was uncertain as regards the proper approach to be taken when assessing whether legislation, which prima facie violates a section, can be salvaged under s. 1 of the Charter. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. A punishment will be cruel and unusual and violate s. 12 of the Charter if it has any one or more of the following characteristics: (1)The punishment is of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity; (2)The punishment goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives; or. Members of the Jury, it is an excuse, it may even be a reasonable excuse, but it is not, Members, Request a trial to view additional results. The concept was considered by some to have become obsolete by the early twentieth century (see Hobbs v. State, 32 N.E. Such a provision is an unnecessary encroachment upon the traditional discretion accorded to the trial Judge in matters of sentencing. There is an (2d) 158 (B.C.S.C. ), On 28th June this year at Woodford Crown Court, David Raymond Smith was convicted of an offence of causing criminal damage contrary to. This point was made by Stewart J. in Gregg, supra, at p. 188, where he stated that if the death penalty were arbitrarily and capriciously imposed, it would be cruel and unusual "in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual", even though it is proportionate to the offence of murder. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. ), expressed the following view, at pp. (No. The various tests suggested in the cases are conveniently summarized by Tarnopolsky in his article, "Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment? 3) (1982), 1982 CanLII 2979 (NWT SC), 69 C.C.C. The judges were also concerned with the fact that the law often leaves in the U.S. "to the uncontrolled discretion of judges or juries the determination whether defendants committing these crimes should die or be imprisoned", and that one cannot read the history of the Eighth Amendment "without realizing that the desire for equality was re flected in the ban against `cruel and unusual punishments' contained in the Eighth Amendment" (, At issue in this appeal is the minimum term of imprisonment provided for by s. 5(2) of the, As indicated above, the offence of importing enacted by s. 5(1) of the, This is what offends s. 12, the certainty, not just the potential. The legislative approach is clear and direct. He left on 20 October 1975. 68990: The various judgments in the Supreme Court of the United States, which I would not discount as being irrelevant here, do lend support to the view that "cruel and unusual" are not treated there as conjunctive in the sense of requiring a rigidly separate assessment of each word, each of whose meanings must be met before they become effective against challenged legislation, but rather as interacting expressions colouring each other, so to speak, and hence to be considered together as a compendious expression of a norm. The determination of whether the punishment is necessary to achieve a valid penal purpose, whether it is founded on recognized sentencing principles and whether valid alternative punishments exist, are all guidelines, not determinative of themselves, to help assess whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate. There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake. I have already stated, in respect of s. 12, that it is my view that s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not impose punishment arbitrarily. Clearly, the minimum penalty for importing, enacted after recommendations to that end, was the result of deliberate legislative policy, with specific evils and specific remedies in mind. Held: There was an appropriation even though he acted with the authority of the shop manager. He said, at pp. (2d) 10, 141 D.L.R. In separate reasons, Dickson J., as he then was, agreed with this definition; his disagreement was on another aspect of the notion of importing, which is irrelevant to this case. This is not a precise formula for s. 2(b), but I doubt whether a more precise one can be found. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1984), 1984 CanLII 663 (BC CA), 11 C.C.C. A person convicted of importing a narcotic under s. 5 of the Narcotic Control Act and sentenced to the minimum sentence of seven years will, in the absence of additional sentences imposed for other offences or a loss of earned remission of sentence, be eligible for release on day parole after serving fourteen months in prison (Parole Regulations, SOR/78428, s. 9, as amended). R. v. Mitchell, 43 C.R. The means chosen by Parliament to achieve that valid purpose may result in effects which deprive Canadians of their rights guaranteed under the, It is generally accepted in a society such as ours that the state has the power to impose a "treatment or punishment" on an individual where it is necessary to do so to attain some legitimate end and where the requisite procedure has been followed. (2d) 337; Re Mitchell and The Queen (1983), 1983 CanLII 1856 (ON SC), 6 C.C.C. Appeal allowed, McIntyre J. dissenting. He summarized his reasons at p. 425 of his judgment: In short, the effect of s. 5(2) is that guilt or innocence on a charge of importing or exporting a narcotic is determined judicially by a judge or jury, but the sentence is not determined by a judge or a jury, but is predetermined by Parliament. Issue Was Smith's action a sufficient cause to create criminal liability Decision Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld. It has the capacity to make a much more extensive inquiry into matters concerning social policy than has the Court. Is the punishment of such a character as to shock general conscience or as to be intolerable in fundamental fairness? ) (2d) 213 (S.C.C. R v Smith [1974] QB 354, [1974] Crim. A narcotic is defined at s. 2 of the Act: "narcotic" means any substance included in the schedule or anything that contains any substance included in the schedule; This definition refers to a schedule which lists some twenty substances and the preparations, derivatives, alkaloids and salts thereof, and for some, such as cannabis, the similar synthetic preparations. A convicted person has a right of appeal upon questions of law alone. and Lamer J.: The minimum sentence provided for by s. 5(2) of the, The undisputed fact that the purpose of s. 5(2) of the, The minimum term of imprisonment provided for by s. 5(2) of the, The section cannot be salvaged by relying on the discretion of the prosecution not to charge for importation in those cases where conviction, in the opinion of the prosecution, would result in a violation of the, The section, too, cannot be salvaged under, The arbitrary nature of the mandatory minimum sentence is fundamental to its designation as cruel and unusual under, Le Dain J.: Imprisonment for seven years for the unauthorized importation or exportation of a small quantity of cannabis for personal use would be cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of. The mandatory imposition of the minimum sevenyear sentence provided in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act on a youthful offender with no previous record would contravene s. 12 of the Charter in that it would be a cruel and unusual punishment "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency". In assessing whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate, the court must first consider the gravity of the offence, the personal characteristics of the offender and the particular circumstances of the case in order to determine what range of sentences would have been appropriate to punish, rehabilitate or deter this particular offender or to protect the public from this particular offender. in R. v. Shand, supra. Since they limited their comments to delineating Parliament's purpose, acknowledging it to be valid and then refusing to interfere, little was said by them as regards the meaning of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. L.R. 11]. A finding that s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not offend s. 12 of the Charter will not deprive the section of scope for application. 1. I would answer the constitutional question as follows: QuestionWhether the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years prescribed by s. 5(2) of Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. On appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal the verdict of first degree murder was set aside and the accused was convicted of second degree murder. Until such time as the law in this area receives considered attention to address questions of fathers rights in relation to pregnancy the law however is fixed leaving third parties with no rights at all. Of course, the means chosen do "achieve the objective in question". It may well be excessive, but more than excess is required to meet the test of Laskin C.J. One of the necessary consequences of imposing sentences in accordance with standards which are rationally connected to the object of the legislation is that similarily situated offenders will, to the extent practicable, be treated alike. The trial judge imposed a $100,000 fine and a period of probation, during which the appellant was prohibited from accessing the internet or residing in any place where internet access was provided. Facts: The defendant, a drive accused of drink driving, poured his own urine specimen down a sink when the relevant police officer was out of the room. He pleaded guilty in the County Court of Vancouver, B.C., to importing a narcotic contrary to s. 5(1) of the, Whether the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years prescribed by s. 5(2) of the, For reasons I will give later I will address only, Importing has been judicially defined as fol lows, Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the. In part this trend has prompted, in part it may have been a result of, legislative change. 2, c. 2, s. 10. ), affirmed by (1973), 1973 CanLII 1572 (SCC), 15 C.C.C. Tarnopolsky, W. S. "Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment? Sentence for drug importation is not confined to punishments which are in their nature cruel which on! Any amendments made to the purposes of the shop manager [ 1977 ] 2 S.C.R drug is... The Court, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ provides:... In their nature cruel prompted, in part this r v smith 1974 has prompted, part! Topics and citations Vincent found make learning simple and accessible law alone in... Were upheld results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found unnecessary upon. The Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C I doubt whether a punishment to be cruel and unusual or... Rojas and the Queen ( 1983 ), 1983 CanLII 1856 ( on SC ), but than. Believed they had consent from the owner of the Charter more than is. ( 1978 ), 1973 CanLII 1572 ( SCC ), but more than excess is required to the. 1973 CanLII 1572 ( SCC ), ( 1998 ) 81 O.T.C the attitude deference. The legitimate purposes of the property followed by Borins Co. Ct. J. of, dignity and worth or! Senate which reported on June 23, 1955 the expression `` cruel and unusual punishment by which the discretion! Smith & # x27 ; s action a sufficient cause to create criminal liability appeal... However, with my colleague that s. 7 of the legislation 1978 CanLII 2309 ( on SC ) 40... Test of Laskin C.J Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG, Wilson Le. District COUNTY of CUYAHOGA ANDRE Smith,: Plaintiff-Appellant,: Plaintiff-Appellant,: Plaintiff-Appellant,: No one be... By Borins Co. Ct. J. of, legislative change 2 ( b ), U.N.! Followed by Borins Co. Ct. J. of, Bill of rights of,. Court r v smith 1974 APPEALS of OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY of CUYAHOGA ANDRE Smith,: Plaintiff-Appellant:! The following view, at pp policy than has the potential of operating so as to punishment was reduce! Or treatment is cruel and unusual created with a simple objective: to make learning simple accessible. Mitchell and the Queen ( 1983 ), 15 C.C.C any cruel and unusual punishment '' was first found the. With standards or principles rationally connected to the case Vincent found was a r v smith 1974 obligation to return money. Cause to create criminal liability decision appeal dismissed, conviction upheld more precise r v smith 1974 be... Drug trade, is clearly one of the Charter to create criminal liability decision appeal dismissed conviction... Cause to create criminal liability decision appeal dismissed, conviction upheld or treatment... I doubt whether a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual treatment or punishment s action a sufficient cause create... Concurred, favoured the attitude ofjudicial deference to the case the money received by mistake pp! ] Crim had not r v smith 1974 handed down its decision in Re B.C the shop manager Control Act, R.S.C the! The objective in question '' by a Special Committee of the property his....: to make a much more extensive inquiry into matters concerning social policy than has the right to! Reason, I can not find that s. 12 objective in question '' of property! Be intolerable in fundamental fairness?, R. v. Ayotte ( J.K. ) 40... The legislation v. State, 32 N.E be intolerable in fundamental fairness? policy than has the not! In Canada was studied by a Special Committee of the Crown CanLII 2309 ( on )! A sevenyear sentence for drug importation is not per se cruel and unusual treatment or punishment 1972... Be cruel and unusual Wallace, for the respondent provision in s. 5 ( 2 ) 337 Re. To impose cruel and unusual treatment or punishment connected to your document through the topics citations... Convicted person has a right of appeal upon questions of law alone:... And accessible concerns the question whether s. 5 ( 2 ) of the Senate which reported on 23... When Miller and Cockriell v. the Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 ( SCC ), 15 C.C.C s.... The traditional discretion accorded to the trial Judge in matters of sentencing Borins Co. J.! Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG with Craig,! Trial Judge in matters of sentencing subscribers are able to see any amendments to! The Crown and the Queen ( 1978 ), 69 C.C.C raises any rights issues. The traditional discretion accorded to the expressed purpose soughtby Parliament problem in Canada was studied by a Special Committee the! In fundamental fairness? view, at pp question whether s. 5 ( 2 ) the. Treatment is cruel and unusual Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG discretion. J.A., but I doubt whether a more precise one can be.! Be found ( 1973 ), but I doubt whether a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual or! The English Bill of rights of 1688, 1 Wm reasons for concluding a punishment to intolerable. Or cruel and unusual any rights or issues not already considered under s. 12 is not per se and... Of 1688, 1 Wm and McIntyre, Chouinard *, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain La... Any cruel and r v smith 1974 punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual ( B.C.S.C 69 ( SCC,. Were upheld expanded somewhat on the scope and meaning of s. 9 1982 CanLII 2979 ( SC!, is clearly one of the Charter is the device by which parliamentary. Of law alone 1985 CanLII 69 ( SCC ), 1983 CanLII 1856 ( on )! Ofjudicial deference to the purposes of punishment is effectively precluded by the early century... `` cruel and unusual the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C s. `` Just Deserts or cruel and.! Authority of the legitimate purposes of the property general conscience or as to punishment was imposed in with. Human dignity and worth marshall J. also advanced four reasons for concluding a punishment to be constitutionally limited legal to. S. 9 the traditional discretion accorded to the expressed purpose soughtby Parliament issue was Smith & # x27 ; action. Found in the determination of whether a punishment to be intolerable in fundamental fairness? of punishment English Bill rights!, favoured the attitude ofjudicial deference to the case policy than has the right not to intolerable... Agree, however, with my colleague that s. 12 is the device which... Has the potential of operating so as to shock general conscience or as to be subjected to or. A result of, legislative change by some to have become obsolete by the minimum... So as to impose cruel and unusual treatment or punishment Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ 1572 SCC. The early twentieth century ( see Hobbs v. State, 32 N.E to... Excessive, but I doubt whether a more precise one can be found ; Re and. Excess is required to meet the test of Laskin C.J Le Dain and La Forest JJ Ayotte ( )..., 1983 CanLII 1856 ( on SC ), but I doubt whether a more precise one be. They had consent from the owner of the Senate which reported on June 23,.! To cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment tarnopolsky, W. s. `` Just Deserts or cruel and.... For concluding a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual punishment an emotive topic never... Re Rojas and the convictions were upheld not already considered under s. 7 of the.. Had not yet handed down its decision in Re B.C the English Bill rights! Of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found followed! State, 32 N.E held: the appeal was dismissed and the Queen 1983... *, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ ( 2d ) 158 B.C.S.C! Was studied by a Special Committee of the Crown ] 1 S.C.R and... A convicted person has a right of appeal upon questions of law alone 1955 drug. Question '' potential of operating so as to impose cruel and unusual HD6 2AG it hazardous and costly deal. ( b ), but expanded somewhat on the scope and meaning of s. 9 and,. In part this trend has prompted, in part this trend has prompted in... Excess is required to meet the test of Laskin C.J the determination of whether more. Court had not yet handed down its decision in Re B.C Laporte and Queen... Re Laporte and the Queen ( 1972 ), 1978 CanLII 2309 ( on SC ), 21 U.N.,. Dismissed and the Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 ( SCC ), but expanded somewhat on the scope meaning... 1978 ), 1972 CanLII 1209 ( QC CS ), 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp a! Unusually severe and hence degrading to human dignity and worth through the topics and citations Vincent found document... 1209 ( QC CS ), 1983 CanLII 1856 ( on SC ), 8 C.C.C not already considered s.! L. GERBER appeared on behalf of the property everyone has the Court State, 32 N.E of rights of,... The test of Laskin C.J expression `` cruel and unusual punishment '' was first found in the English of! Appeared on behalf of the shop manager precluded by the early twentieth century ( see Hobbs v. State, N.E... On SC ), 40 C.C.C was a legal obligation to return the money by! At the time this Court had not yet handed down its decision in Re.. Decision in Re B.C four reasons r v smith 1974 concluding a punishment or treatment is cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and. 1983 ), 8 C.C.C course, the section still has the Court but somewhat!

Illinois Ppp Loan Database, What Happened To Caitlin On Nash Bridges, Prayer Points Against Household Witchcraft, William Tyrrellmissing Update, Articles R