R. c. Robertson, 2024 QCCS 823
[27] Defence counsel did raise the issue of racial discrimination in general terms through the reliance on the case of R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, and the production of various reports[2]. Three points arise from a reading of Morris.
[28] First, whether through judicial notice or evidence led at court, proof of systemic anti-Black racism in society and the criminal justice system is relevant on sentencing.
[29] Second, the gravity or seriousness of the crimes under study is not diminished by such evidence.
[30] Third:
76. Evidence that an offender’s choices were limited or influenced by his disadvantaged circumstances, however, speaks to the offender’s moral responsibility for his acts and not to the seriousness of the crimes (…)
(…)
79. The social context evidence can, however, provide a basis upon which a trial judge concludes that the fundamental purpose of sentencing, as outlined in s.718, is better served by a sentence which, while recognizing the seriousness of the offence, gives less weight to the specific deterrence of the offender and greater weight to the rehabilitation of the offender through a sentence that addresses the societal disadvantages caused to the offender by factors such as systemic racism.
[31] Returning to Mr. Robertson’s case, there was no social context evidence presented on his behalf. Coupled with his implied position that he was not involved in the crimes nor any evidence to explain his acting out if he was, the systemic racial bias argument carries no weight with the Court. Mr. Robertson’s cognitive challenges and personality, however, are considered important elements on sentence.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire