Enhanced Pre-sentence Custody Credit


Historically, sentencing judges assessing the credit to be assigned to pre-trial custody endeavoured to account for both the delayed opportunity for early release and the harshness that typically characterizes confinement in a remand facility. These two dimensions of loss or deprivation hardened into an almost universally applied metric: each day of pre-sentence custody was treated as the equivalent of two days, which total was then deducted from the sentence which would otherwise be imposed on an offender who had been denied bail. (See, for example, R. v. Rezaie (1996), 1996 CanLII 1241 (ON CA), 112 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. McDonald (1998), 1998 CanLII 13327 (ON CA), 127 C.C.C. (3d) 57 (Ont. C.A.); and R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455.)

The Truth in Sentencing Act, S.C. 2009, c. 29 came into force in early 2010. It fundamentally altered the settled approach to the assessment of pre-sentence detention by amending s. 719 of the Criminal Code so as to limit credit for “any time spent in custody” to a maximum of 1.5 days for each day of an offender’s pre-sentence detention, “if the circumstances justify it”.

R. v. Doyle, 2015 ONCJ 492 (CanLII) at para 33, per Justice Green.
Section 719 was considered by the Supreme Court fairly recently in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 (CanLII). Justice Karakatsanis, writing for a unanimous court, concluded that the circumstances referred to in subsection (3.1) need not be exceptional to warrant enhanced credit.  Indeed, the simple loss of eligibility for early release may be a circumstance justifying the enhanced credit provided for in subsection (3.1).  In the post-Summers era, pre-trial custody has been routinely credited at a rate of 1.5 to 1.

Since that time, Ontario courts have held that “in the appropriate circumstances, particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the 1.5 credit referred to in s. 719(3.1)." 

R. v. Doyle, 2015 ONCJ 492 (CanLII); see also R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 (CanLII) at para 6.

In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider both

·         the conditions of the presentence incarceration, and

·         the impact of those conditions on the accused. 

In R. v. Duncan, the appellant had served a considerable amount of his presentence incarceration in “lockdown” conditions due to staffing issues at the correctional institution. While the Court of Appeal for Ontario noted that the pattern of “lockdowns” endured by the appellant was worrisome, without further evidence as to the effect of those conditions on the appellant, it was not able to say that the appellant had suffered particularly harsh treatment entitling him to additional mitigation beyond 1.5-1 credit. See also R. v. Henry, 2016 ONCA 873.

Criminal Code

Determination of sentence

719 (3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence but the court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody.

 (3.1) Despite subsection (3), if the circumstances justify it, the maximum is one and one-half days for each day spent in custody…







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more