Departing from a Joint Submission on Sentence ("Jumping the Joint")
It is an accepted and entirely
desirable practice for Crown and defence counsel to agree to a joint submission
on sentence in exchange for a plea of guilty. Agreements of this nature
are commonplace and vitally important to the well-being of our criminal justice
system, as well as our justice system at large. Generally, such
agreements are unexceptional and they are readily approved by trial judges
without any difficulty. Occasionally, however, a joint submission may
appear to be unduly lenient, or perhaps unduly harsh, and trial judges are not
obliged to go along with them. In such
cases, trial judges need a test against which to measure the acceptability of
the joint submission. The question is: What test? That question was
answered by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43.
The Legal Test for the Rejection of a Joint Sentencing Submission
Would the proposed sentence bring the administration of justice into
disrepute, or is it otherwise contrary to the public interest.
Rejection denotes a submission so
unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its
acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the
relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in
resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice
system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold.
Thus, a sentence which would
otherwise be considered demonstrably unfit absent a joint submission may
nonetheless be acceptable in the context of one.
PROPER PROCEDURE FOR COURTS TO FOLLOW
When faced with a contentious
joint submission, trial judges will undoubtedly want to know about the
circumstances leading to the joint submission — and in particular, any benefits
obtained by the Crown or concessions made by the accused. The greater the
benefits obtained by the Crown, and the more concessions made by the accused,
the more likely it is that the trial judge should accept the joint submission,
even though it may appear to be unduly lenient
Joint Submission taken on an “as-is”
Basis
Trial judges
should approach the joint submission on an “as-is” basis. That is to say,
the public interest test applies whether the judge is considering varying the
proposed sentence or adding something to it that the parties have not
mentioned, for example, a probation order. With the exception of a
mandatory order, if the parties have not asked for a particular order, the
trial judge should assume that it was considered and excluded from the joint
submission.
Counsel’s Opportunity to Make
Additional Submissions
If the trial judge is not
satisfied with the sentence proposed by counsel, fundamental fairness dictates
that an opportunity be afforded to counsel to make further submissions in an
attempt to address the judge’s concerns before the sentence is imposed.
The judge should notify counsel
that he or she has concerns, and invite further submissions on those concerns,
including the possibility of allowing the accused to withdraw his or her guilty
plea.
Withdrawal of Guilty Plea
If the trial judge’s concerns about
the joint submission are not alleviated, the judge may allow the accused to
apply to withdraw his or her guilty plea.
Court to Provide Clear and Cogent
Reasons for “jumping the joint”
Trial judges who remain
unsatisfied by counsel’s submissions should provide clear and cogent reasons
for departing from the joint submission.
PROPER PROCEDURE FOR COUNSEL TO FOLLOW
Counsel should provide the court
with a full account of the circumstances of the offender, the offence, and the
joint submission without waiting for a specific request from the trial judge in
order to give the judge a proper basis upon which to determine whether the
joint submission should be accepted.
Appellate Intervention
An appellate court will
not necessarily interfere with the sentence of the trial judge—where the trial
judge fails to give counsel an opportunity to make further submissions on the
proposed joint sentence—if the sentence is otherwise fit.
R. v. Rosenberg, 2017 ONCA 313.
Comments
Post a Comment