Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Saturday, July 07, 2012

Ontario judge strikes down mandatory minimum sentence for first-offence gun trafficking

In the latest blow to the Harper government’s tough-on-crime agenda, an Ontario judge has struck down mandatory minimum sentencing for first-offence firearms trafficking.

The landmark ruling in an Oshawa courthouse Friday centred on the case of 21-year-old cocaine dealer Christopher Lewis, who faced the mandatory three-year sentence after offering to sell an undercover policeman a .45 caliber handgun — despite having no access to the gun nor any intention to carry through on the sale.

His lawyer, Jeffrey Mazin, challenged the constitutionality of the sentence, calling it “cruel and unusual punishment.” While Justice Paul Bellefontaine did not agree the prison term was grossly disproportionate for Lewis, who has racked up numerous convictions over the years, he deemed the law in a broader sense to be fundamentally unconstitutional.

“Parliament has imposed a minimum penalty that addresses a worst case offence but which grossly overpenalizes the many lesser ways that the same crime can be committed,” Judge Bellefontaine wrote in his 20-page ruling. “The minimum three-year sentence does not address the different degrees of moral blameworthiness associated with the different circumstances under which the offence can be committed.”

In addition to dropping Lewis’s sentence on the firearms offence to one year, Judge Bellefontaine declared section 99 (2) (a) of the Criminal Code — which sets out a three-year minimum sentence for first-offence firearms trafficking — to be “invalid and of no force and effect.”

This is the second recent setback for the federal government’s 2008 Tackling Violent Crime Act, which strengthened bail provisions and increased mandatory prison sentences for serious firearms offences. In February, a Superior Court judge struck down another amended section of the Criminal Code that mandated a three-year minimum sentence for a first-offence loaded firearm possession conviction. The Crown is appealing that decision.

In the Lewis case, the Crown had recommended an eight-year sentence, with three years for the firearms charge and five years for associated cocaine trafficking charges. Lewis had dangled the prospect of a gun sale in front of an undercover officer to keep him interested in his services as a cocaine dealer, the court heard — even though Lewis had no intention of delivering the promised firearm. The defence had asked for a total sentence of two years.

On Friday Judge Bellefontaine imposed three years, including one for the firearms offence.

Wearing a white T-shirt and glasses and with his black hair styled in a short mohawk, Lewis stood in the prisoner’s box for the duration of the judge’s ruling and nodded his head repeatedly toward the end. Outside court, Mr. Mazin lauded the outcome.

“This ruling demonstrates that not all offences involving firearms, real or imagined, should carry the same penalty,” he said. “In this case, it was found that Mr. Lewis had neither the inclination nor the wherewithal to go through with the sale. It’s a victory for Charter rights in this country.”

A spokesman for the Crown declined to comment on Judge Bellefontaine’s ruling, saying only that the Crown was “reviewing the judge’s decision to determine the next steps,” which could include an appeal. The federal Justice Department also declined to comment.

Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Megan O'Toole

No comments:

Post a Comment