[28] Proportionality and parity are key sentencing principles.
[29] Sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code, s. 718.1. The principle of parity must also be taken into account, involving the idea that “similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences”: Friesen, at para. 31; Criminal Code, s. 718.2(b).
[30] While the trial judge referred to some authorities that had been provided to him by counsel during the sentencing hearing, he found that they were not “helpful due to the individual circumstances of each particular case.” In the end, he disregarded those authorities altogether and imposed a sentence well above any sentence that has previously been imposed for like offenders in like circumstances.
[31] The fact that each crime has its own unique circumstances, and is committed by its own unique offender, does not mean that parity has no role to play in the sentencing process. While sentencing ranges cannot be seen as “straitjackets”, and under or overshooting a range will not on its own give rise to a demonstrably unfit sentence, parity remains a strong principle of sentencing, one that exists as an expression of the principle of proportionality: Friesen, at paras. 32, 37, 108; Lacasse, at paras. 58, 60-61. Consequently, the principle of proportionality is respected, in part, by referring to sentences imposed in other cases, sentences that reflect the “collective experience and wisdom of the judiciary”: Friesen, at para. 33.
[58] The task is not to simply check off the aggravating factors with a view to imposing the maximum sentence if each box is ticked. The key is to consider the circumstances underlying each factor and position it on the scale of seriousness. If proportionality and parity are to have meaning, calibrating the seriousness of the aggravating factors is critical to the sentencing exercise.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire