Dangerous and Long-Term Offenders

• Author: Mihael Cole
• Pages: 291-314

291

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Dangerous and Long-Term Ofenders

Mihael Cole*

Few oenders represent a signicant threat to public safety. is reality

is reected in the fact that most sentences are non-custodial, and when

custody is imposed, it is usually for a relatively brief period (see Chap-

ter ). A small percentage of oenders, however, have been convicted of

serious oences, often have long criminal records, and do represent a

clear danger for future violence, including sexual violence. Custody in

such cases is inevitable, mainly to protect the public from the substan-

tial risk of harm the oender poses to society. Yet even with the ability

to sentence oenders to lengthy custodial sentences, there is a subset

of high-risk oenders whose eventual release continues to place the

safety of the community in jeopardy. To combat this risk, Canada has

devised two exceptional sentencing provisions to respond to the need

to protect society: the Dangerous Oender and Long-Term Oender

regimes.

* The opinions ref‌lected in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily

ref‌lect those of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.

292 |   

A. INTRODUCTION TO THE DANGEROUS OFFENDER AND

LONG-TERM OFFENDER REGIMES

A dangerous oender (DO) designation with an indeterminate sen-

tence is the ultimate sanction in the Criminal Code. It allows a court to

sentence high-risk oenders, who meet the legal and statutory criteria,

to indeterminate periods of custody. ese oenders are eligible for

release only when they can demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada

that the substantial risk they pose can be managed in the community.

Long-term oender (LTO) designations are the sister provision to

the DO regime. ese designations are a form of conditional release for

oenders who are one step away from being sentenced to an indeter-

minate period of imprisonment. ey allow for a determinate sen-

tence to be imposed with a heightened form of strict supervision in the

community for a period of up to ten years.

Both provisions are designed to provide an extra level of protection

to the public from oenders who pose a real threat of future violence

and sexual violence. Indeed, the “overriding aim is not the punish-

ment of the oender but the prevention of future violence.” Due to

the exceptional nature of these restrictive sentences, DO and LTO

designations have historically been reserved for a “very small group

of recalcitrant oenders” whose personal characteristics and particu-

lar circumstances favour preventive incarceration. However, since the

amendments made to this part of the Criminal Code in , Parlia-

ment has clearly intended to capture a broader group of oenders than

under previous regimes.

is chapter outlines the history behind the dangerous oender

legislation, describes the essential components of the current legis-

lation, and highlights some of the emerging issues and decisions in the

DO and LTO common law.

 RSC , c C- [Criminal Code].

 R v Payne, [] OJ  (SCJ) at para .

 R v Jones, []  SCR  at para  [Jones].

 R v Lyons, []  SCR  at para  [Lyo ns]; R v Szostak,  ONCA  at para .

 R v Boutilier,  SCC  at para  [Boutilier SCC]; ibid at para .