Supreme court | Sentence
PRINCIPLES
Precluding credit for unavailability of remission would be incompatible with parity principle
Accused pleading guilty to manslaughter in shaking death of infant daughter. Accused spending 10 months in pretrial custody. Crown at sentencing acknowledging accused likely candidate for early parole. Trial judge giving 1.5:1 credit due solely to unavailability of remission and parole eligibility while on remand. Court of Appeal upholding trial judge’s conclusion that s. 719(3) of Criminal Code permits enhanced credit solely for loss of opportunity of early release. Crown appeal dismissed. Nothing in language of s. 719(3) limits scope of “circumstances” that may justify enhanced credit for pretrial custody. Precluding credit for unavailability of remission would be incompatible with parity principle.
R. v. Summers (Apr. 11, 2014, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel J., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., Karakatsanis J., and Wagner J., File No. 35339) Decision at 105 W.C.B. (2d) 789 was affirmed. 112 W.C.B. (2d) 393.
Precluding credit for unavailability of remission would be incompatible with parity principle
Accused pleading guilty to manslaughter in shaking death of infant daughter. Accused spending 10 months in pretrial custody. Crown at sentencing acknowledging accused likely candidate for early parole. Trial judge giving 1.5:1 credit due solely to unavailability of remission and parole eligibility while on remand. Court of Appeal upholding trial judge’s conclusion that s. 719(3) of Criminal Code permits enhanced credit solely for loss of opportunity of early release. Crown appeal dismissed. Nothing in language of s. 719(3) limits scope of “circumstances” that may justify enhanced credit for pretrial custody. Precluding credit for unavailability of remission would be incompatible with parity principle.
R. v. Summers (Apr. 11, 2014, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel J., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., Karakatsanis J., and Wagner J., File No. 35339) Decision at 105 W.C.B. (2d) 789 was affirmed. 112 W.C.B. (2d) 393.
