Das Gericht hebt die Entscheidung des Brampton-Richters auf, den Fahrer mit fünfmal verurteilten Beeinträchtigten nicht zu verurteilen
https://www.cp24.com/local/peel/2025/08/08/brampton-judge-deliberately-refused-to-apply-the-law-when-sentencing-man-convicted-of-impaired-driving-for-fifth-time-superior-court-justice-says/
5 Kommentare
This is a good example of what I’m talking about when I refer to the crisis of under-incarceration in Canada.
A trial judge knowingly, openly, and deliberately refused to sentence a dangerous criminal to jail time, even though everyone agreed that the law required jail time. This judge clearly thinks they are smarter than everyone, don’t have to follow the law, and can implement their own anti-jail ideology with impunity.
Thank goodness the Crown had the guts to appeal.
*Five time* convicted impaired driver?
How does this not qualify for permanent incarceration as a public threat? Clearly this asshole is not rehabilitating. Must we wait until LeClaire kills someone before we treat this seriously?
WTF Canada? Do better.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we need codified sentencing guidelines in this country like the UK and US have.
What sentencing guidelines provide is a semi-formulaic manner to determine an *automatically reasonable* sentence.
Given a crime and various mitigating/aggravating factors such as level of culpability, previous record, etc a range that is acceptable can be determined.
That’s not to say a judge can’t depart from that guideline. But any departure needs to be justified. It needs to be articulated why the sentencing guidelines are too strict or too lax for the given situation.
If the reasons for the departure are bunk, it gives the crown/defendant articulable issues which can be appealed.
I say this as an alternative to mandatory minimums, which OP has previously advocated for. While.I agree for the most part with the intent (i.e. there should be no get out of jail free for your 5th DUI) I don’t necessarily agree with codifying a floor for everything.
If you need an argument against mandatory minimums, look at guns. The level of culpability for the same charge varies from what is genuinely a harmless mistake or a technicality where there was no harm and really no unsafe condition to full on gang shit.
Throwing Mike from Canmore who made an oopsie and Tony Soprano in jail for a mandatory minimum time for ‚gun crime‘ would be grossly unfair.
But that could be tackled with sentencing guidelines. On the low end it’s an absolute discharge, and on the high end it’s jail time.
„In an exchange between the lower court judge and the Crown during the sentencing hearing in March, the judge asks the Crown what they would do if she imposed a four-month conditional sentence instead of the mandatory custodial sentence.
“That is not permitted by statute,” the Crown prosecutor responded.
***“I know, but what if I do,”*** the judge asked.“
This absolutely blows my mind, and makes me furious.
This man was driving the wrong way down a road, while being ***prohibited*** from driving, putting lives in very real danger. And this judge wants to let this 5 time convicted drunk driver go, with less than the bare minimum punishment? Based on what reasoning? Feelings?
This man clearly has not learned any lessons from his previous convictions, and his „punishment“ is to basically say. „I know you’ve been caught 5 times for drunk driving before, but please pinky promise not to do it again“
This type of blatant disregard for the law should result in repercussions for this judge.
Unbelievable.
Edited for spelling
Worth noting that the jail sentence is the statutory minimum. The law doesn’t allow the judge to give conditional sentence. The judge is simply violating the criminal code. Just appalling.