On March 24, 2011, CCLA intervened in R. v. Nur to argue that the Criminal Code’s three-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm is unconstitutional. This sentence, which is set out in s. 95(2) of the Code, applies when the Crown proceeds by way of indictment – which is common in more serious cases. In contrast, when the Crown treats a violation of this section of the Code as a summary conviction offence – which is common in less serious cases – the longest a person’s sentence can be is one year. This means that a judge that convicts a person of violating s. 95(2) of the Code cannot give a sentence of between one and up to three years, even if he or she thinks that this would be the most appropriate sentence for the crime.
While CCLA appreciates the seriousness of gun crime, it has long opposed the use of mandatory minimum sentences in all areas of Canadian law. The flaws of this approach to sentencing have been well documented in criminological studies and include the propensity of mandatory minimums to lead to unjust outcomes, their failure in reducing crime, and their distortion of the justice system by shifting discretion away from judges to prosecutors and police.
CCLA thanks Paul Monahan and Emmeline Morse of Fasken Martineau for their excellent work on this case.
