A Quebec court made legal history last week in handing down a life sentence to a man convicted of drunk driving for the 19th time.
Calling Roger Walsh “incorrigible,” Justice Michel Mercier ruled the stiff jail term was the appropriate remedy for a man convicted of killing Anee Khudaverdian last year while he was impaired behind the wheel.
The case has naturally attracted considerable attention, with media reports highlighting the fact that Walsh left the crash scene after hitting Khudaverdian, a resident of Les Cèdres west of Montreal who used a wheelchair.
Of particular note was the Crown’s request to deem Walsh a dangerous offender, a move that would have allowed authorities to supervise him for 10 years after his release.
Had Mercier accepted that position, the case would have marked an especially noteworthy precedent and a signal the courts are taking the issue of impaired driving more seriously after years of criticism that Canada is too lenient on such crimes.
On its face, Walsh’s case appears an obvious target for such a stringent punishment. By repeatedly drinking and driving in addition to racking up a long list of other criminal convictions, Walsh has shown a flagrant disregard for the law. As well, by killing someone, he represents a clear danger to the public.
Nevertheless, Mercier rejected the dangerous offender application. Instead, he ruled the crime of impaired driving causing death doesn’t fall within the serious personal injury offence definition that is part of the criteria for a dangerous offender designation. It’s a punishment, judges have said, more properly reserved for the most heinous criminals such as serial sex offenders.
The ruling potentially lightens Walsh’s burden. While the Crown’s position would have seen him serve 20 years in addition to a decade of supervision, the life sentence means he will be eligible for parole after seven years. But even then, he would remain under supervision by corrections authorities.
It’s tempting, of course, to accede to emotional arguments about Walsh’s dangerous character and obviously difficult prospects for rehabilitation. But in light of recent attempts in Canada to expand the reach of the dangerous offender provision, Mercier made the right decision.
Judges and politicians should think carefully about taking a law most properly targeted at keeping people like Paul Bernardo behind bars indefinitely and applying it to chronic impaired drivers. Walsh is certainly a difficult case, and while the courts should deal with him harshly, he is not a criminal on the scale of Bernardo.
That being said, his sentence is a signal that at least some judges are treating cases like Walsh’s more harshly. At the very least, the case is a reminder of Canada’s spotty record on dealing with drunk drivers.
Critics, for example, have criticized our legal system for low conviction rates in impaired-driving cases.
In response, the government in recent years has changed the rules to clamp down on the problem.
Still, rather than start deeming drunk drivers dangerous offenders, what’s key is a broader consideration of the effectiveness of ours laws.
Handing down stronger sentences has merit, but jailing new categories of offenders indefinitely would miss the bigger picture.
Calling Roger Walsh “incorrigible,” Justice Michel Mercier ruled the stiff jail term was the appropriate remedy for a man convicted of killing Anee Khudaverdian last year while he was impaired behind the wheel.
The case has naturally attracted considerable attention, with media reports highlighting the fact that Walsh left the crash scene after hitting Khudaverdian, a resident of Les Cèdres west of Montreal who used a wheelchair.
Of particular note was the Crown’s request to deem Walsh a dangerous offender, a move that would have allowed authorities to supervise him for 10 years after his release.
Had Mercier accepted that position, the case would have marked an especially noteworthy precedent and a signal the courts are taking the issue of impaired driving more seriously after years of criticism that Canada is too lenient on such crimes.
On its face, Walsh’s case appears an obvious target for such a stringent punishment. By repeatedly drinking and driving in addition to racking up a long list of other criminal convictions, Walsh has shown a flagrant disregard for the law. As well, by killing someone, he represents a clear danger to the public.
Nevertheless, Mercier rejected the dangerous offender application. Instead, he ruled the crime of impaired driving causing death doesn’t fall within the serious personal injury offence definition that is part of the criteria for a dangerous offender designation. It’s a punishment, judges have said, more properly reserved for the most heinous criminals such as serial sex offenders.
The ruling potentially lightens Walsh’s burden. While the Crown’s position would have seen him serve 20 years in addition to a decade of supervision, the life sentence means he will be eligible for parole after seven years. But even then, he would remain under supervision by corrections authorities.
It’s tempting, of course, to accede to emotional arguments about Walsh’s dangerous character and obviously difficult prospects for rehabilitation. But in light of recent attempts in Canada to expand the reach of the dangerous offender provision, Mercier made the right decision.
Judges and politicians should think carefully about taking a law most properly targeted at keeping people like Paul Bernardo behind bars indefinitely and applying it to chronic impaired drivers. Walsh is certainly a difficult case, and while the courts should deal with him harshly, he is not a criminal on the scale of Bernardo.
That being said, his sentence is a signal that at least some judges are treating cases like Walsh’s more harshly. At the very least, the case is a reminder of Canada’s spotty record on dealing with drunk drivers.
Critics, for example, have criticized our legal system for low conviction rates in impaired-driving cases.
In response, the government in recent years has changed the rules to clamp down on the problem.
Still, rather than start deeming drunk drivers dangerous offenders, what’s key is a broader consideration of the effectiveness of ours laws.
Handing down stronger sentences has merit, but jailing new categories of offenders indefinitely would miss the bigger picture.
- Glenn Kauth
