Conditional sentence was rejected since it would completely diminish the seriousness of the crime
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has ruled that despite the serious nature of the crime, the trial judge should have considered the accused’s advanced age and mitigated the imposed sentence.
In R. v. Premji, 2021 ONCA 721, the appellant was convicted of the crime of heroin importing and was sentenced to 13.5 years imprisonment. He appealed his sentence, alleging his advanced age of 77 years and deteriorating health should have been considered in imposing the sentence.
The Court agreed with the appellant and stated that his advanced age should have mitigated the sentence to some extent. The sentencing judge should have “[refrained] from imposing a fixed-term sentence which so greatly exceeds the offender’s expected remaining life span,” said the Court.
The Court noted that the appellant’s fresh evidence showed the significant deterioration of his health since the time he was sentenced. However, his medical condition cannot override the principles of sentencing to arrive at a sentence that “fails to reflect the seriousness of the offence or the appellant’s moral culpability,” said the Court. Thus, the Court varied the sentence to nine years.
The Court likewise rejected the appellant’s application for conditional sentence grounded on health-related problems or COVID-19-related concerns. “A conditional sentence would completely ignore the proportionality principle and [diminish] the seriousness of the offense,” said the Court. Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that any problems that may arise from incarceration are best dealt with by the Parole Board of Canada.
