Federal court | Prisons
AGREEMENTS FOR TRANSFER TO PENITENTIARY
Objectives of international transfer of offenders scheme could not be achieved through transfer
Application by Canadian prison inmate, who was incarcerated in an American prison after he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, for judicial review of a decision of Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Minister refused to approve applicant’s application under International Transfer of Offenders Act (Can.) to be transferred to Canada to serve remainder of his sentence. Reason was that objectives of international transfer of offenders scheme could not be effectively achieved through applicant’s transfer. Application dismissed. Minister properly exercised his discretion. Minister weighed purposes of Act, applicant’s positive and negative circumstances and relevant factors. One could reasonably conclude, based on information contained in record, that there was a factual basis for Minister’s decision and he was entitled to act as he did. Applicant was not denied procedural fairness. Court therefore deferred to Minister’s decision.
Newberry v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (Nov. 3, 2011, F.C., Shore J., File No. T-1649-10) 97 W.C.B.
(2d) 470 (19 pp.).
Objectives of international transfer of offenders scheme could not be achieved through transfer
Application by Canadian prison inmate, who was incarcerated in an American prison after he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, for judicial review of a decision of Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Minister refused to approve applicant’s application under International Transfer of Offenders Act (Can.) to be transferred to Canada to serve remainder of his sentence. Reason was that objectives of international transfer of offenders scheme could not be effectively achieved through applicant’s transfer. Application dismissed. Minister properly exercised his discretion. Minister weighed purposes of Act, applicant’s positive and negative circumstances and relevant factors. One could reasonably conclude, based on information contained in record, that there was a factual basis for Minister’s decision and he was entitled to act as he did. Applicant was not denied procedural fairness. Court therefore deferred to Minister’s decision.
Newberry v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (Nov. 3, 2011, F.C., Shore J., File No. T-1649-10) 97 W.C.B.
(2d) 470 (19 pp.).
