Supreme Court gets tough on tough- on- crime agenda
Ruling on credit for time served restores discretion of judges during sentencing
The bell has sounded ending one more round in what is shaping up to be a long- running bout between the country’s highest court and the Harper government. The latest skirmish erupted Friday when the Supreme Court of Canada once again softened the Conservative government’s tough- on- crime agenda.
In a unanimous 7- 0 ruling, the high court affirmed that offenders can receive extra credit for time spent in custody before they are sentenced.
The Conservatives’ Truth in Sentencing Act had reduced the discretion of judges to give an offender credit for their time served in pre- trial custody.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay fired back with a terse statement that affirmed the government’s long- held belief that violent criminals should face hard time for their crimes.
The Supreme Court was ruling on three cases that related to the 2009 law that toughened the sentencing provisions for repeat and violent offenders. The law removed the long- held provision of giving an offender credit for double the time already served when they are being sentenced.
The Tories removed the provision, but the law still allowed for a credit of 1.5 times in exceptional circumstances, though the specifics were never defined.
The Supreme Court filled that void Friday and declared that
If the government had wanted to achieve the result they argued in the court, they should have written the legislation differently. And so it’s another slap down of the court for the government saying, ‘ you know, if you’re going to have this kind of agenda, do your homework.’
CRAIG SCOTT NDP PARLIAMENTARY REFORM CRITIC
pre- trial custody constitutes a circumstance that warrants the full 1.5 credit.
“Had Parliament intended to alter the well- established rule that enhanced credit compensates for the loss of eligibility for early release, it would have done so expressly,” said the ruling, written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis. “I conclude that loss of access to parole and early release constitutes a ‘ circumstance’ capable of justifying enhanced credit.”
MacKay said his office would review the “implications” of the decision, but was quick to say that the court had not in fact dampened the time- served rollback of its 2009 law.
“These limits remain in effect,” MacKay said in a statement that invoked the government’s usual tough- on- crime line. “Canadians expect violent criminals to serve sentences which reflect the severity of their crimes. They became increasingly concerned that convicted criminals would receive two for one and sometimes three for one credit for time served off their sentence,” the minister said.
The federal New Democrats characterized Friday’s rulings as a clear rebuke of the Conservative government’s crime agenda.
“It’s a slap in the face for the government,” said the NDP’s parliamentary reform critic Craig Scott. “If the government had wanted to achieve the result they argued in the court, they should have written the legislation differently. And so it’s another slap down of the court for the government saying, ‘ you know, if you’re going to have this kind of agenda, do your homework.’”
Lawyers for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which was granted intervener status in the case, said the ruling restores the discretion that judges need at sentencing.
“The court has recognized that without clear language from Parliament to limit a long- standing approach to sentencing, offenders should not be punished more severely solely because they were not released on bail,” the group said in a statement.