Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
The official party line is that the MMPs disproportionately affect certain groups and that's why they're being repealed. But I think it's mostly because so many MMP cases regarding firearms have been successfully challenged so much that they need to get ahead of it and re-craft something or else it will continue.
|
Yeah, an Alberta court already found the mandatory minimum for robbery using a non-restricted firearm to be unconstitutional:
Quote:
Put simply, the mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery comes into conflict with the Court’s obligation in ss 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code in several types of reasonably foreseeable hypothetical examples. The fulfillment of that obligation means that there are reasonably foreseeable offenders for whom the four year mandatory minimum sentence under s 344 (1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code would be grossly disproportionate.
Accordingly, I find that the four year mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery in s 344(1)(a.1) is in breach of s 12 of the Charter. As there have been no submissions by the Crown on whether that provision is saved by s 1 of the Charter, I conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by s 344(1)(a.1) is unconstitutional. It is not saved under s 1 of the Charter, and is therefore of no force or effect.
|
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...19abqb322.html