(OTTAWA) The Supreme Court of Canada weighed Thursday on the constitutionality of the sentence imposed on the Quebec mosque killer and more broadly on a controversial provision from the Harper era that provides for extremely long sentences.
Posted at 2:14 p.m.
Updated at 3:17 p.m.
“A sentence will have a role to play if it makes sense, if it can be executed. Isn’t a sentence that cannot be executed likely to discredit the penal and criminal justice system? asked the Chief Justice of Canada, Richard Wagner, during the hearing.
The highest court in the country is interested in the case of Alexandre Bissonnette at the request of the Attorney General of Quebec. His decision, which will come in the coming months, is highly anticipated in Canadian criminal law circles. It will have an impact on the mosque killer, but also on the other multiple killers.
The Crown is demanding a life sentence without the possibility of release for 50 years. Bissonnette’s lawyers are instead asking that he be released from prison after 25 years if the parole board so decides.
“There is no other way to reflect the seriousness of Mr. Bissonnette’s actions than to extend to 50 years,” Ms.and François Godin, Crown prosecutor. “In the case of Mr. Bissonnette, reintegration and rehabilitation must, in our opinion, be secondary,” he added, underlining the seriousness of the crimes.
The killer burst into the great mosque of Quebec in January 2017. He opened fire, killing six and seriously injuring several. “It’s a crime motivated by hate,” added M.and Godin. “His only regret was that he didn’t kill more people” and if his semi-automatic weapon hadn’t jammed, he could have killed “easily 50 or 60 people”.
But Judge Wagner seemed skeptical. Would a 50-year firm sentence respect the principle of rehabilitation? The killer would then be 77 years old.
“It is known from statistics that offenders in long-term prison will die at an average age of 61,” noted Judge Wagner. “Isn’t it a bit short to claim that he has a chance of rehabilitation at 77? »
A “death sentence in prison”
Sentencing Bissonnette to life in prison without the possibility of release for 50 years represents a “death sentence in prison”, argued Ms.and Erin Dann, of the Queen’s Prison Law Clinic.
“We cannot determine 50 years in advance whether a person will be rehabilitated or not,” said the killer’s lawyer, Mr.and Charles-Olivier Gosselin.
Judge Wagner summed up the crux of the problem thus: “as part of our fundamental values of justice there is denunciation, protection, security, but also rehabilitation”.
The issue was less crucial before 2011, when the maximum sentence was life in prison with no possibility of release for 25 years. But that year, Stephen Harper’s government introduced section 745.51. It aimed to “end sentence discounts for multiple murders”. It makes it possible to multiply the prison sentences for those who kill more than one person.
Prison sentences of 75 years have been given in Canada in recent years. In the case of Bissonnette, who theoretically would have been eligible for 150 years in prison, the trial judge sentenced him to 40 years in prison. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, found that these extremely long sentences were unconstitutional, and imposed 25 years in prison.
Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Moldaver, appointed by Stephen Harper, meanwhile hinted that he would be open to rewriting the controversial provision, to give the courts more leeway.
He cited the example of a mother who kills her four children “because she is depressed, desperate, physically and mentally abused by her husband…”
“It’s a bit different from a case like this, where we have a multiple killer involved in hate crimes against a vulnerable and marginalized group who shows no remorse, who keeps reloading his gun,” said he said.
“I think there is a basis for parliament to say: you know what, Judge, you can increase the sentence up to five years for each murder up to a maximum of X, say 40 years… Is- is there something fundamentally wrong with that? »
The Supreme Court took the case under advisement.