R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), (1998) 167 N.S.R.(2d) 43 (CA)

• Judge: Freeman, Pugsley and Bateman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: March 23, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1998), 167 N.S.R.(2d) 43 (CA)

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (1998), 167 N.S.R.(2d) 43 (CA);

    502 A.P.R. 43

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.016

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Marty Lorraine Morrisey (respondent) and The Attor­ney General of Canada (intervenor)

(C.A.C. No. 141429)

Indexed As: R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Freeman, Pugsley and Bateman, JJ.A.

March 23, 1998.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death contrary to s. 220 of the Criminal Code and pointing a firearm (s. 86(1)). Section 220(a) mandated a mini­mum sentence of four years' imprisonment where a firearm was involved.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 154 N.S.R.(2d) 278; 452 A.P.R. 278, held that s. 220(a) was uncon­stitutional because it constituted cruel and unusual treatment or punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The court sentenced the accused to two years' impris­onment for criminal negligence causing death and a consecutive sentence of one year's imprisonment for pointing a firearm. The court also imposed a lifetime firearms prohibition order under s. 100 of the Crimi­nal Code. The federal Crown appealed on the ground that it was not given notice of the constitutional challenge, as required.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 160 N.S.R.(2d) 13; 473 A.P.R. 13, allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed at trial and remitted the matter for sentencing and resolution of the constitutional challenge.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 161 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 477 A.P.R. 91, affirmed its earlier decision that s. 220 violated s. 12 of the Charter and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law. Accord­ingly, the court affirmed the sentence orig­inally imposed. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The minimum sentence under s. 220(a) did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter. The court substituted the minimum sentence of fours' imprisonment.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - Section 220(a) of the Criminal Code provided that where the offence of criminal negligence causing death was caused by using a firearm there was a mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that s. 220(a) did not constitute cruel and unusual pun­ishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter - First, imposi­tion of the minimum sentence in this case would not result in cruel and unusual punishment - Second, although the minimum sentence in the case of some offenders might be severe, it would not be grossly dispropor­tionate to the offence in any reasonable hypothetical circumstances - The court noted that a conviction under s. 220(a) required proof of a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others, precluding a conviction for "tragic acci­dents" - The court discussed the issue (but found it unnecessary to resolve it) as to whether the lack of judicial discretion to give credit for lengthy remand time would lengthen a sentence to such an extent as to render it grossly disproportionate in the circum­stances of that accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 5863.1

Sentence - Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, appld. [para. 13].

R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711; 112 N.R. 193; 111 A.R. 161; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Guiller (1985), 48 C.R.(3d) 226 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Bill (L.D.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. J23 (S.C.), disagreed with [para. 30].

R. v. Bill (L.D.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 173 (S.C.), disagreed with [para. 30].

R. v. Kumar (R.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 81; 58 W.A.C. 81; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Lefthand (1981), 31 A.R. 459 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. J.C. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Bell (T.E.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 36; 29 W.A.C. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. LaPierre, [1998] A.Q. No. 91 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Chief (1989), 51 C.C.C.(3d) 265 (Yuk. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [1997] S.J. No. 701 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 12 [para. 10].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 219 [para. 9]; sect. 220 [para. 8]; sect. 236(a) [para. 34].

Counsel:

Denise Smith, for the appellant;

Malcolm S. Jeffcock, for the respondent;

Theodore J. Tax, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on February 12, 1998, before Freeman, Pugsley and Bateman, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On March 23, 1998, Bateman, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.