The Supreme Court 's Court

Canadian Criminals are a major part of Canadian society. In our country if you were not the direct victim of a crime you tend to forget the members of society that take pleasure in causing societies grief. As in the case of James Hutchinson and Richard Ambrose, whose crimes were committed in December of 1974.1 They were convicted of killing two Moncton City Police officers. Today, years after the murders were committed Ambrose and Hutchinson are still the center of a major controversy that has plagued our parole system. In order to fully understand the controversy that Ambrose and Hutchinson posses you must look at the

This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

Jury nullification should continue to be recognized as a part of the Canadian justice system. The power of the juries should stay the same crucially because in some cases the defendant may actually have a reason to not be guilty even though they may be guilty for the crime that they have committed. Authors, Neil Brooks and Anthony Doob discuss about juries and the strengths and weaknesses about them and jury nullification. Chief Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal discusses about Krieger 's Appeal and the strengths of jury nullification and how the jury following their conscience is sometimes better than following the “rule of law”. Paul Butler suggests that the law should expand jury nullification by allowing jurors who are the same race as the defendant who is guilty be free which I believe should not be added in the criminal justice system because of the many negative outcomes it may cause in society. Jury nullification is when a jury that takes part in a case believes that the defendant is not guilty even though he/she is guilty for the crime that they have caused by using their conscience instead of considering the facts that they have been presented by the law and that follow the rule of law. Jury nullification should continued to be recognized and the power of juries should be limited because of many reasons. Although jury nullification may be a positive factor to a defendant and to society as well, sometimes it won 't be if the power of juries stays the

I have proposed in these first paragraphs that there are problems with having judges at the head of the legal and moral trajectory of our nation, but surely I am not the first to propose such a thing. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms addresses this issue by having the threat of a legislature disregarding the Supreme Court. Sections 1 and 33 give parliament just such authority. At the beginning of this essay I made the statement that putting our rights under reasonable limits

In R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issue of proper interpretation of s. 718.2(3) for the first time. The accused was an Aboriginal women charged with second-degree murder for the killing her common-law husband. Gladue’s defence counsel did not raise that she was an Aboriginal offender in his submissions on sentence at trial and she was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a ten-month weapon prohibition. Gladue appealed her sentence to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and again to the Supreme Court of Canada in December 1998. Although her appeal was dismissed again, the Court went to provide a framework for interpreting s. 718.2(e). In this case, it was determined that the Court was required to consider all reasonable alternatives to imprisonment for all offenders with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders generally and not only to those living on the reserves. In particular, there needs to be more emphasis on restorative justice, where community members and the victim will also be involved in the process. The Court is allowed to take into account prior findings of guilt when determining the appropriate sentences and in some offences prior guilt will create a higher minimum sentence, which the Court

Twenty-nine offences in the Criminal Code have a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment time. The majority of these sentences were introduced with Bill C-68, a set of firearms-related legislation introduced in 1995. In addition, there are also mandatory minimum sentences for several other offences, such as child prostitution, betting, pool-making, and impaired driving. Mandatory minimum sentences impose legislated punishments, furthermore, there is no discretion for judges to reduce the sentence for anyone convicted of an offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence in Canada, which is seen by critics as a major problem in our Canadian legal system. Judges should be given legal discretion in reducing the sentence for accused individuals. A number of cases have dealt with the question of whether minimum mandatory sentences violate section 12 of the Charter. This essay will look at R. v. Latimer in depth, as well as briefly explore some additional issues that mandatory minimum sentences place on Canadian Citizens.

The aspect of the Canadian justice system that this article relates to is obviously policing/ law enforcement. Specifically this article goes into the regulations of policing as Ontario police officers now have to follow stricter regulations when stopping any member of the public. This is important in relation to the Canadian justice system as police officers stopping citizens is considered a controversial issue as people feel random stops or carding are considered arbitrary, and unnecessary, and this violates section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms which states that “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”. (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and Carding is “A practice by which officers stop, question,

I am a high school student at Monarch Park Collegiate, taking law. I am writing to express my concern about an innocent native-born Algerian who the Canadian government is going to be deported named Mohammad Harkat. Mohmmad Harkat has been unfairly and poorly treated under the Canadian law system. I learned about him threw a movie our law class watched, “The secret trail 5” witch highlights how Security Certificates are totally unfair and injustice full. The movie also highlights how Harkat was denied his rights and everything that happened to him that was injustice. Therefore, I think Mohammad Harkat is innocent, as his Canadian and human rights were affected. I

Since the birth of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is growing scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada’s role in the intertwinement law and politics. Individuals are noting that courts under judicial review have the capacity to shape law to meet the evolving needs of society (Sharpe, 2003:1). This paper will analyze the emerging issues witnessed in the study of Canada’s judiciary system. The first issue being explored is the concept of “Judicial Activism”. This paper defines “Judicial Activism” with accordance to Britannica Encyclopaedia online as being a phenomenon in which judges take a direct policy-making role, and seem more than willing to strike down legislative or executive actions. (Roosevelt, 2015:1).

The criminal procedure utilized by Canada and France holds some similarity in the process of locking criminals away. Canada’s criminal procedural gives the accused the ability to defend themselves against unlawful prosecution. The trial option offered to the accuse provides an opportunity to challenge the evidence with the use of the courts. If a case is weak and the accuse believe a judge and jury would be able to determine, its weakness and dismissed the charges before going any further. France’s criminal procedure is similar to Canada’s juridical system. This is especially so in their inquisitorial system, which follows civil law jurisdictions. Each country sets out to punish criminals for crimes they commit and they also establish laws

It is of great importance to discuss the challenges faced by indeterminate sentence prisoners maintaining factual innocence as it forms many questions revolving around the criminal appeals process and the adequacy of procedures as it pertains to the prison system, the Parole Board and the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC). I will discuss these issues in light of Stefan Kiszko and a comparison of both Canada 's and Australia 's appeal system.

Plea bargaining should not exist in the Canadian Criminal Justice System, as it is erosive to the primary values and the cherished principles found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

American fugitives frequently would remain wherever they came into Canada but had to live in fear of slave catchers coming over the border to try and reacquire escaped property. Legal avenues were a frequent recourse of slave catchers to try to underhandedly return escapees under false pretenses. However the lack of a distinct extradition treaty left decision making on a jurisdictional basis with great strength resting in regional institutions and individual judges or