Stuart O'Connell Criminal Law Blog

Wait, What?! Toronto Police Using Facial Recognition Technology Written by Stuart O’Connell (All rights reserved to author). Facial recognition technology represents one of the most significant modern threats to personal privacy, given—in part—the ubiquity of cameras in public and private spaces, the development of the technology through deep learning non-linear data processing systems, and the nature of the information it yields: identity, primarily, but often aggregated with information detailing location and time. While facial recognition (FR) has been in development since the 1970s, its use by government has become suddenly more viable and thus increased. It is important as the technology gains wider use that we as a society are cognizant of the risks of the technology as well as its social value so that we can demark acceptable limits for its use.   This cannot meaningfully occur if citizens are generally unaware that the technology is being used. Case in poin

In its 2002 decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario substantially raised the sentences imposed on adults who sexually assault children on multiple occasions. In  R. v. D. (D.), 2002 CanLII 44915 (ONCA), the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that adult offenders in a position of trust who sexually abuse children on a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms.  In that case, the offender had been convicted of eleven sexual offences involving four boys as a result of conduct spanning seven years. The appeal court upheld the nine-year sentence imposed by the trial judge, noting that this sentence fell at the lower end of the appropriate range.  Since that time, R. v. D. (D.) (sometimes referred to by lawyers as “Double D”) has become a jurisprudential touchstone for Ontario courts sentencing adults who have repeatedly sexually abused children. Some points to keep in mind: ·   

Sentencing is part of the trial process. It is no surprise then that certain procedural rights that exist for the accused at earlier parts of the trial, exist at the sentencing phase: the right to counsel, the right to call evidence and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, the right to give evidence him/herself and to address the court. At sentencing, a court is not bound by the same strict rules of evidence that guide the process of determining guilt or innocence.  Flexibility is key.  The judge traditionally has had wide latitude as to the sources and types of evidence upon which to base the sentence.  For instance, hearsay evidence may be accepted where it is found to be credible and trustworthy.  When an accused enters an early guilty plea there will have been no trial and thus no findings of fact by the court.   It is not unusual in such situations for counsel to provide the court with the evidence for sentencing through informal oral submissions. However, when