By agreeing with the Court of Appeal in the case of the sentence of the killer Alexandre Bissonnette, the Supreme Court annuls one of the last effects of the toughening of the Criminal Code adopted by the former Harper government. “We can speak of a decision with historical ramifications,” noted criminal lawyer Walid Hijazi. “It’s a decision that will be taught in universities. »
In a unanimous judgment made public on Friday, the nine judges of the highest court in the country upheld the sentence of Alexandre Bissonnette to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years.
First sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 40 years, Alexandre Bissonnette had seen his eligibility period reduced to 25 years by the Quebec Court of Appeal. It was this decision that the Quebec government challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 29, 2017, the Quebec resident fired on believers praying at the Grand Mosque of Quebec, killing six and injuring 19.
“The horror of the crimes does not negate the fundamental proposition that all human beings carry within them the capacity for rehabilitation,” Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote in a nearly 100-page ruling. From the outset, imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 50 or 75 years is unconstitutional, says the highest Canadian court.
A decision that opens the door to a series of judicial reviews.
Article 745.51 forgotten
The possibility of imposing such sentences on multiple murderers stemmed from changes made to the Criminal Code by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2011. Under section 745.51, a judge could order that periods of ineligibility for parole for each life taken — 25 years — be served consecutively.
However, Friday’s judgment draws a line under section 745.51, and does so retroactively. “It’s as if the provision should never have existed,” says Walid Hijazi.
Therefore, criminals who have had such sentences imposed in the past will have the opportunity to have them reviewed. Their sentences will not, however, be automatically modified, specifies Mr.e Hijazi. “They have a step to take. They have to go to court. »
But beware, insists the Supreme Court in its decision: the Bissonnette judgment does not mean that all these criminals will one day be able to regain their freedom. “The belief that parole ends the offender’s sentence is a myth,” the judges wrote. The murderer who is granted parole remains “subject to the strict supervision of the system” and his “liberty continues to be considerably restricted”.
An already “severe” regime, notes the Supreme Court
The judgment further points out that eligibility for parole after 25 years is already “harsh” and that in other countries (Germany, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland, among others), sentences can be reviewed after 12 or 15 years.
In Canada, the 25-year period was established in the mid-1970s “after a political compromise” to “satisfy the supporters of the death penalty” after its abolition, recalls the highest court in the country.
However, since 2011, section 745.51 has ensured that certain criminals could not be eligible for parole during their lifetime. The assassin of three Moncton police officers, Justin Bourque, for example, would not have had access to it until he was 99 years old. As for Alexandre Bissonnette, who took the lives of six people, he originally faced 150 years of waiting.
According to the Supreme Court, such a sentence obviously violates the “right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” guaranteed by section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “Not only do such punishments bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but they are cruel and unusual in nature,” the judgment reads.
Disappointment and resignation among Muslims in Quebec
At the Great Mosque of Quebec, it was time for disappointment on Friday. Because for many grieving families, even the sentence imposed at first instance – life imprisonment without the possibility of release for 40 years – was not enough.
In a press briefing, the co-founder of the Islamic Cultural Center of Quebec, Boufedlja Benabdallah stressed that he would have liked to avoid the families of the victims any possibility of meeting at random, in two decades, the executioner of their loved ones.
“We accept because we have no other recourse,” he said. If we have one recourse left, it is to turn the page. »
On Friday, federal Justice Minister David Lametti said Justin Trudeau’s government “respects” the Supreme Court’s decision, even though it previously “recognizes” judges’ discretion under section 745.51. .
The Conservative Party of Canada called the decision “unacceptable”, accusing the highest court in the country “of not defending the rights of victims”. The elected Conservatives therefore undertake to “advocate” in the future “legislation which keeps the perpetrators of heinous crimes behind bars”, they argued in a press release.
With Sebastien Tanguay