Humboldt Broncos tragedy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by loob job

I believe that means he gets deported as well. Anything over 6 months.

Yup. Or just being convicted for a crime that has a potential maximum sentence of 10 years.

He is going back to India as soon as he is released.

[bluejays]

Wow. You feel bad for the families of everyone involved, but you look at the sentence to a guy who made a pretty big one time mistake, and the remorse he showed and you still give him that? I think he got railroaded by the prosecution to put it lightly. It's not all about money, but what does that sentence truly accomplish? It's a stretch to say it's going to deter distracted driving. It's simply punitive to the individual who's clearly remorseful. I think a sentence like that is shameful as a Canadian.

[Playfair]

If the sentence was lighter, people would be upset he didn’t get more.

[Nyah]

This whole story is really just awful all around. So many families destroyed, including his. It makes me sad.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Playfair

If the sentence was lighter, people would be upset he didn’t get more.

people are upset at this sentence.

[lazypucker]

I think the exposure of this accident also played in a factor of the prosecution and sentencing, because it is about hockey. If it is say a bus full of foreign tourists who got ran over we probably won't even be talking about it after the first week.

People talk about the impact to the families of the players, but how about the impact to the family of the driver? I am OK with the sentence to the driver, but if he will be deported when he gets out, what does it achieve? He committed a crime, but he is not a criminal. He just made a irreversible mistake.

[Playfair]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

people are upset at this sentence.

It just seems to me that people are going to be upset regardless. What a tragic event. The families of the kids will never be the same, nor this poor guy. He has received a life sentence too. There are no winners. So sad.

[spuzzum]

Such a tragedy and really impossible to sentence to appease the family, victims, and society. I do think pleading guilty should really have impacted his sentence. The driver saved an extreme amount of heart ache to the families and burden on the state to prove the charges. Had he fought, max would have been 10 and he got 8.

For context on the challenge proving this case especially around the definition of dangerous driving:

The leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on Dangerous Driving is R. v. Roy

At paragraph 28 of the decision, Cromwell J., writing for the majority, cites an earlier case, R. v. Beatty. In reviewing the actus reus and mens rea of the offence. He repeats the wording of s. 249(1)(a) offence to find the actus reus and outlines the mens reu as “the degree of care exercised by the accused was a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s circumstances.” Cromwell J. later adds that a marked departure is a more serious attracts criminal punishment unlike a mere departure which would only justify civil liability.

The analysis of this is done on a case by case basis to determine how the driving was relative to the incident.

For example, a Court may find that driving at 100km/h and striking a pedestrian is dangerous no matter how attentive one was on the road. However, in another context, driving on the same road and conditions, if one was travelling at 55km/hr and looks away for a brief moment to see why their child is crying may not result in criminal liability.

Although every case involving death is inherently tragedy, the circumstances in which that takes place are different and must be analyzed on a case by case basis. There is no clear answer and Courts must follow the law in deciding whether the actions of the driver meet the definition under Canadian law.

[Cole436]

This....this isn’t right. This was a tragedy, not a massacre. What does this sentence accomplish? My heart goes out to the families and I can’t imagine what they’re going through, but this doesn’t feel like justice. This is unprecedented and I can’t imagine there won’t be an appeal.

[MoneyGuy]

I’d have given him a shorter sentence then early release and deportation. As has been said, no sentence would been enough for some of those poor families.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by fleury

Wow. You feel bad for the families of everyone involved, but you look at the sentence to a guy who made a pretty big one time mistake, and the remorse he showed and you still give him that? I think he got railroaded by the prosecution to put it lightly. It's not all about money, but what does that sentence truly accomplish? It's a stretch to say it's going to deter distracted driving. It's simply punitive to the individual who's clearly remorseful. I think a sentence like that is shameful as a Canadian.

I have zero issue with the sentence, as it means he will probably be released in 4 years if he keeps his nose clean.

His willful indifference to his surroundings ended the lives of 16 people....he admitted it...so there absolutely has to be some consequences to that.

From the mouth of the judge...

“It is baffling and incomprehensible that a professional driver could miss so many markers over such a long distance,” Judge Inez Cardinal said Friday, adding that she found Sidhu’s blameworthiness to be “high.”
The judge noted on Friday that because Sidhu is a permanent resident, and not a Canadian citizen, he will be deported after serving his sentence.

Cardinal said sentencing principles must reflect the gravity of the offence and moral blameworthiness of the offender.

“Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing,” Cardinal said.

Cardinal said the most aggravating factor is that his actions led to the deaths of 16 people and caused a catastrophe that will linger for years to come.

However, Cardinal continued, there were “many” mitigating factors, including Sidhu’s guilty plea that spared the families a lengthy, painful trial. Sidhu has also shown genuine remorse and will likely suffer psychological pain for the rest of his life, the judge said.

Sentences are fact specific, Cardinal continued. She said she accepts that Sidhu did not purposefully drive through the intersection in order to speed up his trip, but says he had “ample time to react” to the intersection — had he been paying attention.

Court heard he was distracted by a flapping tarp on his trailer and missed four highway-related signs leading up to the stop sign at the intersection. Brayford said the failure to comprehend the signage is what elevated it from a traffic offence to a criminal act.

“This was not just an accident, this was a crime. A very serious crime,” he said.

And it will be much worse moving forward...he could have received "life".

As of December 2018, the Criminal Code of Canada increased the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death from 14 years to life imprisonment, and the maximum sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm from 10 years to 14 years. The changes do not apply to Sidhu because the crash happened before the amendment.

https://leaderpost.com/news/crime/hu...ears-in-prison

[Northendzone]

i was thinking it woujld be interesting to know what the families thought of the sentence, my guess is that they are likely all over the map similar to how we have different opinions....almost a year to see this come to some conclusion

[bluejays]

I don't think anyone can really explain what this sentence truly accomplishes. There were articles prior saying that the public was shocked that the prosecution asked for 10 years when (IIRC) 4 years was the previous precedent. This was not a person who should have been used as an example to uphold the law. He was remorseful and made a mistake trying to make a living. Lives were lost, a lot of them, but that doesn't make this right. Again, it's not about money but this is a burden on tax payers for nothing, though that's secondary. It doesn't bring back the victims, and is so punitive that it's ridiculous. Fully agreed that it was this way because they were hockey players and it got national attention - doesn't make it right.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Playfair

If the sentence was lighter, people would be upset he didn’t get more.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

people are upset at this sentence.

His sentence is that he will live with this for the rest of his life.

Eight years seems a bit like piling on to me. But I understand the need for a penalty that is somehow representative of the loss (though that is of course, entirely impossible).

There is no win here.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by fleury

I don't think anyone can really explain what this sentence truly accomplishes. There were articles prior saying that the public was shocked that the prosecution asked for 10 years when (IIRC) 4 years was the previous precedent. This was not a person who should have been used as an example to uphold the law. He was remorseful and made a mistake trying to make a living. Lives were lost, a lot of them, but that doesn't make this right. Again, it's not about money but this is a burden on tax payers for nothing, though that's secondary. It doesn't bring back the victims, and is so punitive that it's ridiculous. Fully agreed that it was this way because they were hockey players and it got national attention - doesn't make it right.

I understand your take on this, i live with someone who feels similar.

I will ask though,

What should the penalty be when someone is responsible for ending 16 lives through their own actions and admits it?

And as noted in court it was said this was not a mistake, this was a crime by definition.

He will be out in 4 years...that seems light to me, but i can live with it.

He absolutely needed to be penalized for this beyond whatever else he is living with inside his head.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I understand your take on this, i live with someone who feels similar.

I will ask though,

What should the penalty be when someone is responsible for ending 16 lives through their own actions and admits it?

And as noted in court it was said this was not a mistake, this was a crime by definition.

He will be out in 4 years...that seems light to me, but i can live with it.

He absolutely needed to be penalized for this beyond whatever else he is living with inside his head.

This isn't your everyday cut and dried case. If someone really needs to be prosecuted, it's the whole system that allowed him to be driving solo after two weeks of riding shotgun.

Two years, 20 years, 100 years won't bring back the people who died, and wont reverse the injuries of the survivors or the families involved. His sentence is pretty much a waste of time to talk about.

He was not running that Stop sign to save time or make more money. There was no malice. It was inexperience that caused this tragedy. Inexperience that we currently allow on our roads. The real question is why was he driving a truck like that, alone? Sending him to prison or to India or to Guantanamo isn't going to address the real reason this particular accident happened.

[wretched34]

I don't understand how some feel 8 years (likely serves half of that) is to much?
16 lives were lost..... the Judge deemed each life he took was worth 8 years in prison, and each person he injured was worth 5. The actual sentence is 193 years. Yet serving 0.5-1 of 29 charges is too much?

The guy recklessly, and carelessly took the lives of 16 people, and ruined the lives of countless more. Accident or not, there needs to be punishment for that, and 3-6 months per life lost doesn't seem like to much.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I understand your take on this, i live with someone who feels similar.

I will ask though,

What should the penalty be when someone is responsible for ending 16 lives through their own actions and admits it?

And as noted in court it was said this was not a mistake, this was a crime by definition.

He will be out in 4 years...that seems light to me, but i can live with it.

He absolutely needed to be penalized for this beyond whatever else he is living with inside his head.

from this article
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...cing-1.5055569


The highest dangerous driving sentence in Canada, for a case that doesn't involve alcohol (6 years) , was given to Mohinder Singh Saini, 76, a Quebec truck driver who didn't slow down as he drove a transport truck into a construction zone near Whitby, Ont., and caused a crash that killed four people and injured 11.

Brown, the defence lawyer from Toronto, argued Sidhu shouldn't be given a stiffer sentence than Saini just because his victim count is higher.

The Quebec truck driver didn't plead guilty, didn't show remorse, and he lied to the police and judge. In comparison, Sidhu co-operated with authorities, pleaded guilty and expressed remorse.



I'm of the opinion that the sentence is too high considering every other case in Canadian history. I don't see what purpose 8 years serves.

[Northendzone]

to me a crime is a guy breaking into something (bank, home, auto) to take something that is not his and belongs to someone else.

yeah, this guy committed a crime by not stopping at the stop sign - but i feel like is a different shade of a crime. i would feel differently, if there were reports of him running cars off the road prior to blowing the stop sign - but i dont think there is.

[Amethyst]

It seems high to me for the following reasons:

1) Yes, he killed and injured a large number of people, but that was because of the vehicle he collided with. If he did everything exactly the same but the timing was different and he collided with a single occupant vehicle, the death toll would have been much smaller.

2) From all the reports I've heard, he was a brand new driver who was distracted / concerned by a loose tarp that was flapping. He became too focussed on the problem with his truck and lost focus of the road signs in a stressful situation. He could go to jail for 100 years and it wouldn't make a difference the next time an inexperienced trucker is in a stressful situation. At that moment, you aren't thinking about what you should do or what someone else did wrong. Your instincts take over.

Who I DO blame for this part of the tragedy is the owner and the trucking industry and regulators that allowed this situation in the first place. If the owner faced jail time or a significant fine, it MIGHT make a difference in the future. Future owners would know the consequences when they are deciding their training and hiring practices and would not be making a split second decision in a stressful moment.

3) He pled guilty, from all accounts, out of a sense of genuine remorse. This isn't some career criminal who is pleading guilty to get a light sentence. And by avoiding a trial, he saves Saskatchewan the cost of a trial and he saves the families from having to endure the pain of a trial. I think that should factor into the length of his sentence.

I don't really know what a "good" sentence would be, but I don't see how jail time benefits anyone except those who want vengeance. It's too bad he couldn't be sentenced to something like an ongoing fine for X number of years, where a certain percentage of his salary would go to fund things the victims need for their recovery.