Furthermore, even assuming some deterrent value, I am of the opinion it would be cruel and unusual if it is not in accord with public standards of decency and propriety, if it is unnecessary because of the existence of adequate alternatives, if it cannot be applied upon a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards, and if it is excessive and out of proportion to the crimes it seeks to restrain. III, s. 2(a), (b). Yet the judge has no alternative under the section. See F Stark, 'Judicial Development of the Criminal Law by the Supreme Court' (2020) 0 OJLS 1; Zach Leggett, "The New Test for Dishonesty in Criminal Law-Lessons from the Courts of Equity" (2020) 84(1) The J Crim L 37; Karl Laird, , speaking for the majority of this Court, stated at p. 331: Thus, even though the pursuit of a constitutionally invalid purpose will result in the invalidity of the impugned legislation irrespective of its effects, a valid purpose does not end the constitutional inquiry. A higher court however subsequently withdrew the injunction: see Kelly v Kelly [1997] SLT 896. 3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Furthermore, s. 7 was not really considered in relation to s. 9. Thus, any comments on the meaning of s. 12 must be made with s. 9 in mind and, as whenever ss. ); Re Mitchell and The Queen, supra; Re Moore and The Queen, supra; R. v. Tobac (1985), 1985 CanLII 180 (NWT CA), 20 C.C.C. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work. This does not mean that the judge or the legislator can no longer consider general deterrence or other penological purposes that go beyond the particular offender in determining a sentence, but only that the resulting sentence must not be grossly disproportionate to what the offender deserves. Held: He was liable for theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belonging to the service station as they were in possession and control of it. Q.B. It shocked the communal conscience. In each view, elements of both cruelty and unusualness are involved in a consideration of the total expression. ); R. v. Morrison, supra). Gender-based violence in general. 4; Dowhopoluk v. Martin (1971), 1971 CanLII 557 (ON SC), 23 D.L.R. The purported certificate in the present case is a nullity being granted in excess of jurisdiction. 1970, c. P6, s. 24, as am. As a preliminary matter, I would point out that there is an air of unreality about this appeal because the question of cruel and unusual punishment, under s. 12 of the Charter, does not appear to arise on the facts of the case. In setting the minimum sentence at seven years for importing narcotics, Parliament has determined that the gravity of the offence, the protection of the public, and the suppression of the drug trade are of paramount importance and that, consequently, the circumstances of the particular accused should be given relatively less weight. I am in general agreement with McIntyre J. He appeals against that conviction upon a question of law. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. It is not necessary, for reasons discussed above, to answer the question as regards ss. R v Smith (David) [1974] QB 354 - Case Summary R v Smith (David) [1974] QB 354 by Will Chen 2.I or your money back Check out our premium contract notes! 145. agreed with Craig J.A., but expanded somewhat on the scope and meaning of s. 9. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. & M. sess. Ronnie L Kimes - EXPIRED M.V.R/NO REGISTRATION - Texas. In short, the effects test will only be necessary to defeat legislation with a valid purpose; effects can never be relied upon to save legislation with an invalid purpose. Is it in accord with public standards of decency or propriety? ) This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. We in Canada adopted through the preamble of our Constitution the legislative restraint set out in s. 10 of the English Bill of Rights of 1688, 1 Wm. H.C.)), or dismissed out of deference to Parliament's wisdom in enacting the challenged legislation (R. v. Dick, Penner and Finnigan, supra, and R. v. Roestad (1971), 1971 CanLII 568 (ON SC), 5 C.C.C. Tarnopolsky, W. S. "Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment? This is what offends s. 12, the certainty, not just the potential. 23]. The question of the good faith of a doctor sanctioning an abortion is a question for the jury. It is the fact that the sevenyear sentence must be imposed regardless of the circumstances of the offence or the circumstances of the offender that results in its being grossly disproportionate in some cases and therefore cruel and unusual in those particular cases. It was "unusual" because of its extreme nature. (3d) 233 (B.C.C.A. I offer no opinion as to what a court would decide in respect of any of these examples of treatment should a challenge be made. However, the effect of the minimum is to insert the certainty that, in some cases, as of conviction the violation will occur. ); R. v. Tobac, supra; R. v. Randall and Weir (1983), 1983 CanLII 3138 (NS CA), 7 C.C.C. Than in 1972 the Appellant gave notice to quit and asked the landlord to allow the Appellant's brother to remain as tenant of the flat. Study Mens Rea - Intention and Recklessness flashcards from Rhys Brennan's class online, or in Brainscape's iPhone or Android app. 7 that would be of assistance to us in the present appeal, as most of the cases that have addressed the provision have dealt with the conditions of imprisonment or the type of treatment to which those being detained are subject. Present: Dickson C.J. a severe punishment must not be unacceptable to contemporary society" (p. 277). Section 12 on its face appears to me to be concerned primarily with the nature or type of a treatment or punishment. After pleading guilty before Wetmore Co. Ct.J., the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the sevenyear minimum sentence found in s. 5(2) of the, . 7 and 9 as follows, at p. 258: Counsel did not press the argument under s. 7 of the Charter. Is it such that it cannot be applied upon a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards? ) This approach is necessary, in my view, if we are to recognize and give effect to the very special nature of the prohibition contained in, What factors must be considered in deciding whether a given sentence may be categorized as cruel and unusual? In that case, it was decided that the seven day minimum sentence mandatorily imposed by the, , a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal under the, Macdonald J.A. Since they limited their comments to delineating Parliament's purpose, acknowledging it to be valid and then refusing to interfere, little was said by them as regards the meaning of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. It is clear however that at this moment in time the only parties who have any say in whether a termination should or should not be carried out are the two medical practitioners. However, he chose not to make an order "declaring s. 5(2) of the, Having concluded that the minimum sentence imposed by s. 5(2) of the, Furthermore, s. 7 was not really considered in relation to s. 9. There was no minimum, although the sixmonth minimum was retained for possession of drugs and for cultivation of the opium poppy or cannabis sativa. Trafficking in any of them is a serious offence. This would not provide an acceptable basis for constitutional determination. The Appellant's defence was that he honestly believed that the damage he did was to his own property, that he believed that he was entitled to damage his own property and therefore he had a lawful excuse for his actions causing the damage. Where do we Look for Guidance?" ); R. v. Morrison, Ont. First, the objective, which the measures responsible for a limit on a. But, Members of the Jury, I must direct you as a matter of law, and you must, therefore, accept it from me, that belief by the Defendant David Smith that he had the right to do what he did is not lawful excuse within the meaning Of the Act. Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission. Suffering behind female sex workers: Why we should oppose legalisation of prostitution. C.A. L.R. 334 (CA), R. v. Bowen and Kay, (1988) 91 A.R. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account. Statistics Registration Regina v Smith (John): 1974 The question of the 'good faith' of a doctor sanctioning an abortion is a question for the jury Citations: [1974] 1 All ER 376 Statutes: Abortion Act 1968 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.557383 Posted on May 8, 2022 by dls Posted in Crime First, the objective, which the measures responsible for a limit on a Charter right or freedom are designed to serve, must be "of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom": R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. Their cultivation is also prohibited. The conviction was quashed as a result. On this basis, I would adopt Laskin C.J. Plaintiffs donative intent was clear, she argues, had he not-intended to deliver his sperm to [her], he would have used a condom and kept it and its contents.. Smith's brother lived with him in the flat, and they installed electric wiring, roofing material, asbestos wall panels, and floor boards in part of the flat. But the Crown's justification fails the second prong, namely minimum impairment of the rights protected by s. 12. Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. (3d) 336 (Ont. [Emphasis added.]. In so doing, I will touch also on s. 9. R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 The defendant, a soldier, got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier. 783. On the issue of arbitrariness, s. 9, I conclude in the interests of judicial comity that the argument is resolved in favour of the Crown in R. v. Newall (1982), 1982 CanLII 301 (BC SC), 70 C.C.C. As time passed, the civilizing influence of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries eliminated, or at least greatly reduced, the danger of such barbarous punishments. Le Dain J.I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of my colleagues Justices Lamer and Wilson. Key point Mistaken belief that damaged property belongs to oneself, even if unreasonable, is a good defence to criminal damage Facts 7. Issue Was Smith's action a sufficient cause to create criminal liability Decision Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld. A finding that s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not offend s. 12 of the Charter will not deprive the section of scope for application. There is no dispute that the roofing, wall panels and floor boards became part of the house and, in law, the property of the landlord. ), c. 17. The legislation does not restrain the discretion of the trial judge to weigh and consider the circumstances of the offence in determining the length of sentence and it cannot be considered arbitrary and therefore cruel and unusual. 570, 29 C.C.C. (3d) 138; Piche v. SolicitorGeneral of Canada (1984), 1984 CanLII 3548 (FC), 17 C.C.C. Request a trial to view additional results, R. v. Turningrobe (R.A.), (2007) 409 A.R. Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. The approach has been frequently adopted in other cases and, in my view, provides a sound approach to the interpretation of the words in question (see, . Dickson C.J., speaking for the majority, stated the following at p. 138: To establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrablyjustified in a free and democratic society, two central criteria must be satisfied. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. This is not a precise formula for s. 2(b), but I doubt whether a more precise one can be found. Smith was the tenant of a ground floor flat. Motor Vehicle Act, supra). -they believed they had consent from the owner of the property. He concluded that capital punishment for murder of a peace officer did not contravene this norm and concurred with his colleagues in dismissing the appeal. In 1954, towards the close of the Session of Parliament, the Act, 195354, c. 38, was passed. (The respective dates of the two Acts are immaterial, in view of s. 5(2) of the Bill of Rights.) largely adopted the tests enunciated in the American cases and the earlier Canadian case considered above. Indeed, little or nothing was really argued as regards s. 7, while argument under s. 9 was rather limited. ), said, at p. 592: Under Gregg, a punishment is "excessive" and unconstitutional if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. 7, 9 and 12 thereof? Now to deal with the appellant. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. was not satisfied by the Crown's efforts to salvage the section. The basis for such policy may be reviewed if the policy is said to conflict with individual rights under the Charter, but, in my opinion, the policy ought not to be struck down, in the case of a challenge under s. 9, unless it is without any rational basis. (3d) 240 (Nfld. (2d) 564 (Ont. R. v. Wong (1978), 41 C.C.C. The majority of the court applied a proportionality test in holding the death penalty not cruel and unusual in all circumstances. 1979, c. 288. Februar 1975 [3] R v Smith (Winston) 61 Cr App R 128, [1975] Crim LR 472 R v Smith (Percy) [1976] Crim LR 511, DC The question is not whether the sentence is too severe, having regard to the particular circumstances of offender "A", but whether it is cruel and unusual, an outrage to standards of decency, having regard to the nature and quality of the offence committed, and therefore too severe for any person committing the same offence. At customs he was searched and the officers found over seven ounces of cocaine. In our view a minimum sentence of seven years for importing a drug contrary to the Act is not so disproportionate to the offence that the prescribed penalty is cruel and unusual. These examples demonstrate that the courts have been reluctant to recognise any paternal right to be involved in the pregnancy termination decision making process. concurred, favoured the attitude ofjudicial deference to the expressed purpose soughtby Parliament. ); R. v. Lewis (1984), 1984 CanLII 2027 (ON CA), 12 C.C.C. o R v Smith [1974] D must know the property belongs to another, or realise that it might and must intend to destroy or damage it, or realise his actions might result in damage or destruction In this case D made honest mistake of civil law so was not liable, did not have MR What is the actus reus of basic arson? 295, this Court expressly held that a corporation charged with a criminal offence under the Lord's Day Act could argue that the Act violated freedom of religion, under s. 2(a) of the Charter, without also alleging that the statute specifically infringed its religious beliefs. (No. 171; Ex parte Kleinys, 1965 CanLII 652 (BC SC), [1965] 3 C.C.C. 103. The present appeal is yet another instance of a number of cases, which have recently come before this Court, in which the Judge of the trial court has purported to grant a certificate on grounds involving questions of law alone. See details Located in: Los Angeles, California, United States Delivery: Estimated between Fri, 3 Mar and Wed, 8 Mar to 23917 Payments: Returns: 30 day return. In the words of Professor Tarnopolsky, as he then was, supra, at p. 33: it is very rare indeed that a court could secondguess Parliament as to whether the penal aim to be achieved is a legitimate one or whether there are adequate alternatives. Motor Vehicle Act, 1985 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. (2d) 438 (Que. (2d) 23 (Ont. I would answer the constitutional question and dispose of the appeal as proposed by him. Ct. 1st Dist. 's interpretation of the phrase as a "compendious expression of a norm". 102 (B.C.S.C. The debate between those favouring a restrictive application of the Canadian Bill of Rights, as a result of a great reluctance to interfere with the expressed intention of Parliament through the use of a nonconstitutional document, and those determined to give s. 2(b) greater effect culminated in this Court's decision in Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. Thus he found, as did Craig J.A., that the sentence was appropriate. A definition which satisfies this requirement and fits modern conditions is again supplied by Laskin C.J. (3d) 1 (F.C.T.D. (3d) 324 (Ont. The mandatory feature of s. 5(2) is not saved by s. 1 because the means employed to achieve the legitimate government objective of controlling the importation of drugs impairs the right protected by s. 12 of the Charter to a greater degree than necessary. A minimum mandatory term of imprisonment is not in and of itself cruel and unusual. 161, at p. 170). R. v. Smith (1980), 1 Sask.R. (2d) 337. There will still be other offences and circumstances where the punishment will be based primarily upon the possi bilityof rehabilitation. The effect of the minimum is to insert the certainty that, in some cases, a violation will occur on conviction. On 28th June this year at Woodford Crown Court, David Raymond Smith was convicted of an offence of causing criminal damage contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence upon which the jury could conclude that the killing was planned. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. Solicitors for the appellant: Serka & Shelling, Vancouver. (2d) 438; Pearson v. Lecorre, Supreme Court of Canada, October 3, 1973, unreported; R. v. Hatchwell, 1974 CanLII 203 (SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R. The remaining two sources of arbitrariness, however, can and should be considered by the courts. I have considered whether that should not be sufficient to sustain the validity, on its face, of the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, subject to the power of a court in a particular case to find that the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutionally inapplicable because it would in all the circumstances of the case be cruel and unusual punishment. Nevertheless, leave to appeal was granted and the constitutional question was stated. It would not be permissible to impose a punishment which has no value in the sense that it does not protect society by deterring criminal behaviour or serve some other social purpose. The criterion which must be applied in order to determine whether a punishment is cruel and unusual within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter is, to use the words of Laskin C.J. (No. Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. 1970, c. P2, s. 15, as amended; and the Penitentiary Act, R.S.C. December 31, 1979. She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything to her employer. Indeed, the net cast by s. 5(2) for sentencing purposes need not be so wide as that cast by s. 5(1) for conviction purposes. (See R. v. Dick, Penner and Finnigan, 1964 CanLII 693 (MB CA), [1965] 1 C.C.C. At pages 69394 of his judgment, he states: Justice Brennan propounded a cumulative test, which represented the arguments addressed to this Court by the appellants and the intervenor, and it was in these words: If a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes. The court in assessing whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate must consider the gravity of the offence, the personal characteristics of the offender, and the particular circumstances of the case to determine what range of sentences would have been appropriate to punish, rehabilitate, deter or protect society from this particular offender. In my view, the appellant cannot succeed on this first branch. That Act was replaced by the Opium and Drug Act, 1911 (Can. I am prepared to accept this premise, but I am unable to agree that the conclusion that they urge is wellfounded. in his concurring, minority. o Destroy or damage by fire Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. . In the United States, where criminal law is within the competence of the state legislatures and thus varies from state to state, the judiciary was concerned with possible discrepancies in the imposition of the death penalty throughout their country. in Miller and Cockriell, supra. R v Smith [1974] 2 NSWLR 586. But the wording of the section and the schedule is much broader. A husband sought injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from terminating his estranged wifes pregnancy in Paton v Trustees of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service [1979] QB 276. In Canada, the protection of one's liberty is to be found in various provisions of the Charter and the content of each of those sections must be determined in light of the guarantees enunciated in the other sections and the content the courts will be putting into those sections. Under s. 5(2) of the Act, punishment continues to be imposed for reasons which are rationally connected with the objects of the legislation, that is, the suppression of the illicit traffic in drugs. In separate reasons, Dickson J., as he then was, agreed with this definition; his disagreement was on another aspect of the notion of importing, which is irrelevant to this case. As regards this subject the comments by Borins Dist. 7, 9 and 12. The "street value" of the narcotic, after dilution, was estimated to be between $126,000 and $168,000. 26]. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. What is unconstitutional for one must be unconstitutional for all when charged with the same offence. -they believed they had consent from a person they wrongly . ), c. 50 (the first Canadian enactment on the subject), prescribed no minimum prison sentences. (3d) 193 (Ont. Various tests have been suggested in the cases referred to and in the academic commentaries on this subject but not all will be relevant in every case. 2200 A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. In that respect the determination is arbitrary, and the resulting imprisonment is arbitrary imprisonment. It provides that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. At pages 69394 of his judgment, he states: Applying the remaining tests, he found that, while all punishment is degrading, the death penalty was not particularly degrading when it was considered in relation to the offences for which it was imposed. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1984), 1984 CanLII 663 (BC CA), 11 C.C.C. An appropriation exists even where the victim consents to the appropriation. The jury convicted both of robbery and they appealed contending that nudging fell short of using force. Where do we Look for Guidance? Co. Ct.), at p. 209; and by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Shand, supra, where Arnup J.A., writing for the court, stated at pp. H.C.)), In the early years of the Canadian Bill of Rights, in those rare cases where s. 2(b) was the object of some judicial analysis, the application of the prohibition was either limited to the protection against the infliction of excessive and unusual physical pain (R. v. Buckler, 1970 CanLII 568 (ON CJ), [1970] 2 C.C.C. 152, refd to. The ruling itself is not the cause for discussion as the decision is not binding in the English courts however the actions which lead to the case being heard by the courts are the cause for discussion. It cannot be said that the Charter sought to effect that purpose by giving an absolute discretion in the matter to the courts. (3d) 306 (Ont. (2d) 401; R. v. Shand (1976), 1976 CanLII 600 (ON CA), 30 C.C.C. Added to that potential is the, The appellant returned to Canada from Bolivia with seven and a half ounces of 85 to 90 percent pure cocaine secreted on his person. "Trafficking" was defined as meaning importation, manufacture, sale, etc. With respect to the written stories, the judge dismissed the appeal, set aside the original sentence and probation order, and imposed a $2,000 fine. The object was to reduce drug addiction by making it hazardous and costly to deal in drugs. Finally, this punishment was imposed in accordance with standards or principles rationally connected to the purposes of the legislation. A/810 (1948), at 71) also provide similar protection against cruel or inhuman punishment but, here too, little assistance can be had for the present appeal. All that Parliament has done is to conclude that the gravity of the offence alone warrants a sentence of at least seven years' imprisonment. Is the punishment of such a character as to shock general conscience or as to be intolerable in fundamental fairness? ) The section, too, cannot be salvaged under s. 1 of the Charter. (1978), 10, APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, , dismissing an appeal from sentence imposed by Wetmore Co. Ct. J. and overturning his ruling finding s. 5(2) of the. The Attorney General referred a question to the Court of Appeal. Further, after considering the justifications of deterrence and retribution, he concluded at pp. In his view, the treatment served no "positive penal purpose", and even if it did, "it [was] not in accord with public standards of decency and propriety". It was held that the trial judge had erred in not letting Smith demonstrate his case to the jury and this was considered to be a fundamental misdirection in the law. (2d) 438; R. v. Tobac (1985), 1985 CanLII 180 (NWT CA), 20 C.C.C. Abandoning the debate as to whether "cruel and unusual" should be read disjunctively or conjunctively, most courts have clearly taken the Laskin approach as set out in Miller and Cockriell and have treated the phrase "cruel and unusual" as a "compendious expression of a norm" (In re Gittens, 1982 CanLII 5224 (FC), [1983] 1 F.C. Solicitor for the intervener: Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. Home US States Texas Smith County, TX Ronnie L Kimes. See Lord Justice Scarman's judgment in R v Smith [1974] 1 All ER 376: The legality of an abortion depends upon the opinion of the Doctor. 1970, c. C34, and other penal statutes. 1952, c. 201, s. 4. I would answer the constitutional question as follows: QuestionWhether the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years prescribed by s. 5(2) of Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. Facts: Hinks, a young mother, befriended a 53 year old man called John Dolphin. (3d) 353; R. v. Lyons (1984), 1984 CanLII 48 (NS CA), 15 C.C.C. It shocked the communal conscience. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Secondly, the defendant must know that the property belongs to another or be recklessness as to whether it belongs to another: R v Smith [1974] QB 354. When Jordan arrived at the meeting point, the other appellants, Plummer and Haines, emerged from an alleyway where they had been hiding and attacked Jordan. Laskin C.J., supported by Spence and Dickson JJ., delineated more thoroughly the protection afforded by s. 2(b). You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Macdonald J.A. Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183. Unsatisfied Mr Paton sought to secure the injunction by arguing that his standing to protect his unborn childs right to life was secured under the right to respect for his private and family life in Paton v United Kingdom [1980] 3 EHRR 408. A person convicted of importing a narcotic under s. 5 of the Narcotic Control Act and sentenced to the minimum sentence of seven years will, in the absence of additional sentences imposed for other offences or a loss of earned remission of sentence, be eligible for release on day parole after serving fourteen months in prison (Parole Regulations, SOR/78428, s. 9, as amended). 9 and 7 of the Charter. ), refd to. and Lamer J.: The minimum sentence provided for by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act breaches s. 12 of the Charter and this breach is not justified under s. 1. It recommended substantially more severe penalties for trafficking, with a "compulsory lengthy minimum sentence, increasing for second or subsequent offences". The punishment is of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity; )The punishment goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives; or. ) The minimum must, subject to s. 1, be declared of no force or effect. There are, in my view, three important components of a proportionality test. In view of the careful and extensive consideration given this matter by Parliament and the lack of evidence before this Court suggesting that an adequate alternative to the minimum sentence exists which would realize the valid social aim of deterring the importation of drugs, I cannot find that the minimum sentence of seven years goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives.

Negative Impacts Of Theme Parks, What Percent Of College Athletes Quit Their Sport, Yellow Mandarin Essential Oil Emotional Benefits, Redheads And Alcohol Tolerance, Articles R