|
Criminal - Sentencing - Proportionality. R. v. R.S.
In R. v. R.S. (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered 'proportionality' as a sentencing principle:The requirement of proportionality
[26] Proportionality means that a sentence is “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: Criminal Code, s. 718.1. As Lacasse instructs, at para. 53, proportionality is determined both on an individual basis – considering the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the particular offender – and having regard to sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Proportionality demands that individualization and parity be reconciled. . R. v. Simeunovich
In R. v. Simeunovich (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered criminal sentencing 'proportionality':Proportionality and parity
[16] The sentencing judge properly instructed himself that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. As the Supreme Court of Canada instructed in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 411 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 10, proportionality is the organizing principle in reaching the goal of a fair, fit, and principled sanction for a specific case; the principles of parity and individualization, while important, are secondary principles.
|
