R. v. Roks, 2011 ONCA 618 (CanLII)
Lien vers la décision
[15] The principle of parity expressed in s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code requires us to take into consideration that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
[16] Parity is not equivalence, nor is similar, identical. Crucial to the parity principle expressed in s. 718.2(b) are the cumulative requirements of
• similar offences
• similar offenders
• similar circumstances
Similar offenders should receive similar sentences for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. When the similarities begin to fall away, however, so does the principle. Offenders may be at different ages and stages, have different antecedents and realistic prospects for rehabilitation, and greater or lesser involvement in or responsibility for an offence. Some plead guilty and co-operate with authorities. A discount may follow in their cases. Others plead not guilty and have a trial. They don’t get the discount.
[17] The principle of parity does not require that the sentences imposed on everyone involved in the scheme to burn down the Woodbine building and collect the insurance proceeds be the same. Fire-setters, prime movers and middlemen have different roles. Some are first offenders, others dedicated recidivists. Some plead guilty and provide evidence for the prosecution, while others keep their own counsel. Some suffer life‑threatening and permanently disfiguring injuries, but others don’t. The arsonist and the middleman are not similar offenders with similar roles in this offence
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire