In March of 2009, Andrew Kummer, driving with a blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit, caused an accident resulting in three deaths. He pled guilty to ten charges arising from this incident and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
Kummer had no prior criminal record and was a young man (adult). The accident was especially horrific. That said, a sentence of eight years' imprisonment for a young first time offender who pled guilty is striking.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence on the basis it was not manifestly unfit. In so doing the Court suggested the range often suggested of four or five years for impaired death cases was no range at all. The Court held:
[18] The sentence imposed on the appellant is higher than those levied in Ramage and Junkert. For the appellant, this difference provides the tipping point in his argument. The appellant candidly and fairly acknowledges that the sentencing judge was aware of and considered the general principles of sentencing, fully addressed the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and engaged in the proportionality analysis mandated by Priest. The appellant's submission, summarized crisply near the end of his oral argument, is "the number is too high... an eight-year sentence here is outside the four to five-year range in Ramage and Junkert".
[19] I do not accept this submission. Ramage and Junkert do not and cannot cap the sentences available for this kind of offence. This is so for three reasons.
[20] First, imposing such a cap would contradict the Criminal Code and defy the will of Parliament. The maximum sentence for the offence of impaired driving causing death is life imprisonment. It must remain within the realm of possibility that a life sentence could be imposed for this crime. Absent a determination that the maximum penalty is unconstitutional, this court is not entitled to lower the maximum penalty any more than it is entitled to raise it.
[21] Second, in Junkert itself this court cautioned against thinking formulaically about sentence ranges in drinking and driving cases involving death. As expressed by O'Connor A.C.J.O. at para. 40:
I begin by noting that courts should be cautious in rigidly applying "a range" of sentences in cases such as this, involving impaired driving causing death. In R. v. Heaslip (2001), 10 M.V.R. (4th) 220, 49 W.C.B. (2d) 347 (Ont. C.A.), in dismissing a Crown appeal from a sentence for two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, this court said:
In R. v. L.(J.) [(2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 2199 (Ont. C.A.)], this Court also recognized that cases involving drinking and driving did not demonstrate a particular range of sentencing but rather that the sentences were driven by the almost "infinite variety of circumstances in which this offence can be committed".
[22] Third, there is precedent for the imposition of sentences more severe than those found in Ramage and Junkert in impaired driving causing death cases.
2 comments:
"That said, a sentence of eight years' imprisonment for a young first time offender who pled guilty is striking."
Sorry Morton, but 8 years is only enough for a lawyer like yourself who charges $350 per hour.
Lawyers in Canada need junkies on the streets to fill up bail courts, and to keep Morton from making his $3000 per day.
Morton, 8 years for killing 3 people is not nearly enough.
It is to a lawyer who relies on these individuals for a living, but put yourself in the victims shoes.
In the USA this guy would be doing life, just like the people he killed.
In Morton's world, which is the Marxist worldview, this guy would have gotten a suspended sentence and would have been back on the streets to commit more crime.
I've been through the system and I know first hand how corrupt the whole justice system is.
From unelected judges to unelected crown attorneys to unelected police chiefs.
These people are all friends and when there is no accountability, are we surprised at some of the sentences these convicts receive.
When is this going to end.
When I think of or hear the sentences these unelected judges hand out I literally tremble for the victims of these crimes who receive no justice.
Morton makes $350 per hour.
Are you surprised he wants these convicts in his office looking over "disclosure" rather than being locked up for a long time.
I also noticed how there is no mention if the victims names in your article.
Again we have a Marxist trying to use a tragedy to further his own Pan-Leninist worldview.
Morton, this link is dead via the liblogs.ca web page.
People need to understand lawyers like yourself and the actual motives behind it which is power,corruption,and greed.
Morton simply wants lenient sentences for financial reasons.
Bail court makes lawyers a $1000 to $ 5000 for under an hour of so called "litigation" which is really garbage because "case law" and "friends" trump "equal justice".
That's why two different people with no criminal record could have two different outcomes at "bail court".
The one who pays Morton thousands of dollars gets out but the poor crackhead who uses "legal aid" gets a denied bail but might be lucky to get a bail review.
Morton knows that lawyers in Canada need people to commit crimes over and over for the $350 per hour label to stick.
Criminal Defense lawyers should not only be required to take drug and alcohol urinalysis, but they should have to take lie detector tests every other day to keep them honest.
When no one is elected in the Canadian justice system it's not surprising that Morton would have dinner with a Crown or a Judge?
I have witnessed first hand an article where a judge was taking money from the prosecutor who was actually prosecuting a case in front of this judge.
Nothing happened and it just went away.
How nice.
This happens all over Canada.
Post a Comment