R. c. Cyr, 1991 CanLII 2934 (QC C.A.)
R. c. Fallofield, 13 C.C.C. (2d) 450, 454
(1) The section may be used in respect of any offence other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or the offence is punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or for life or by death.
(2) The section contemplates the commission of an offence. There is nothing in the language that limits it to a technical or trivial violation.
(3) Of the two conditions precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction, the first is that the Court must consider that it is in the best interests of the accused that he should be discharged either absolutely or upon condition. If it is not in the best interests of the accused, that, of course, is the end of the matter. If it is decided that it is in the best interests of the accused, that, of course, is the end of the matter. If it is decided that it is in the best interests of the accused, then that brings the next consideration into operation.
(4) The second condition precedent is that the Court must consider that a grant of discharge is not contrary to the public interest.
(5) Generally, the first condition would presuppose that the accused is a person of good character, without previous conviction, that it is not necessary to enter a conviction against him in order to deter him from future offences or to rehabilitate him, and that the entry of a conviction against him may have significant adverse repercussions.
(6) In the context of the second condition the public interest in the deterrence of others, while it must be given due weight, does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions.
(7) The powers given by s. 662.1 should not be exercised as an alternative to probation or suspended sentence.
(8) Section 662.1 should not be applied routinely to any particular offence. This may result in an apparent lack of uniformity in the application of the discharge provisions. This lack will be more apparent than real and will stem from the differences in the circumstances of cases.
Rechercher sur ce blogue
S'abonner à :
Publier des commentaires (Atom)
Le dédommagement à la victime doit toujours être envisagé lors de la détermination de la peine
Les délais causés par le délinquant constituent-ils une « mauvaise conduite » aux fins de la détermination du crédit majoré de la détention présentencielle ?
R. c. J.W., 2025 CSC 16 Lien vers la décision [ 87 ] Dans l’arrêt Summers , la juge Karakatsanis a expliqué que,...
-
Marcotte c. R., 2017 QCCS 62 (CanLII) Lien vers la décision [ 32 ] Les motifs raisonnables de croire sont définis comme étant ...
-
R. c. Allard, 2014 QCCQ 13779 (CanLII) Lien vers la décision [ 80 ] Quant au chef concernant la possession d'une arme prohi...
-
R. c. Cénac, 2015 QCCQ 3719 (CanLII) Lien vers la décision Tableau de SENTENCES en matière de FRAUDE DE PLUS DE 5 000$ Art. 3...
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire