justken2u
10-28-2006, 07:33 PM
I would like to highlight an important part of the Appeal Court's decision
in overturning the "cruel and unusual" sentencing exemption that directly
relates to the content of letters being written to the Parole Board and the
Minister of Justice.
In its decision to overturn Mike's mandatory sentencing exemption, the Court
considered Mike's eligibility for parole as a factor mitigating against a
finding that a mandatory four year sentence, in Mike's case, amounted to
cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the court reasoned that the
"trial judge erred by not considering the prospect of parole." The Appeal
Court noted that the "Conditional Release Act" provides for full parole
eligibility after one-third of a sentence is served, with day parole
eligibility six months earlier citing sections 119(1)(c)(i), s. 120(1) of
that Act. The Court reasoned that, on a jail sentence of three years and
five months (that being, the mandatory four years less seven months’ credit
for pre-trial custody), Mike would have been eligible for day parole after
serving slightly less than eight months, and for full parole after less than
14 months. The Court found this to be "a significant reduction in the term
of imprisonment and a compelling circumstance in assessing whether the
sentence was cruel and unusual."
Mike has now served over 2 years of his sentence and was therefore eligible
for full parole over one year ago! As we know, Mike is now back in jail
without, as yet, having access to a decision regarding his parole
eligibility. I would hope that everyone writing to the Parole Board would
highlight the fact that the Appeal Court found that Mike's sentence was not
cruel and unusual punishment, "compellingly", because of his parole
eligibility. As noted, Mike is currently eligible for full parole and, to
date, has not yet had the access to the legislated sentencing relief
afforded him. To remain within the law, the Parole Board needs to
immediately give effect to his parole application along with due
consideration as to one of the principal reasons the Appeal Court found that
a four year sentence did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
It seems apparent that the Parole Board needs to be made aware that time is
of the essence in setting a date for a Parole Board hearing and a subsequent
affirmative decision regarding Mike's parole eligibility, else Mike will be
denied the full benefit of the sentencing regime indicated by the Appeals
Court and prescribed by current legislation.
Thanks,
Pat Cleary
in overturning the "cruel and unusual" sentencing exemption that directly
relates to the content of letters being written to the Parole Board and the
Minister of Justice.
In its decision to overturn Mike's mandatory sentencing exemption, the Court
considered Mike's eligibility for parole as a factor mitigating against a
finding that a mandatory four year sentence, in Mike's case, amounted to
cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the court reasoned that the
"trial judge erred by not considering the prospect of parole." The Appeal
Court noted that the "Conditional Release Act" provides for full parole
eligibility after one-third of a sentence is served, with day parole
eligibility six months earlier citing sections 119(1)(c)(i), s. 120(1) of
that Act. The Court reasoned that, on a jail sentence of three years and
five months (that being, the mandatory four years less seven months’ credit
for pre-trial custody), Mike would have been eligible for day parole after
serving slightly less than eight months, and for full parole after less than
14 months. The Court found this to be "a significant reduction in the term
of imprisonment and a compelling circumstance in assessing whether the
sentence was cruel and unusual."
Mike has now served over 2 years of his sentence and was therefore eligible
for full parole over one year ago! As we know, Mike is now back in jail
without, as yet, having access to a decision regarding his parole
eligibility. I would hope that everyone writing to the Parole Board would
highlight the fact that the Appeal Court found that Mike's sentence was not
cruel and unusual punishment, "compellingly", because of his parole
eligibility. As noted, Mike is currently eligible for full parole and, to
date, has not yet had the access to the legislated sentencing relief
afforded him. To remain within the law, the Parole Board needs to
immediately give effect to his parole application along with due
consideration as to one of the principal reasons the Appeal Court found that
a four year sentence did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
It seems apparent that the Parole Board needs to be made aware that time is
of the essence in setting a date for a Parole Board hearing and a subsequent
affirmative decision regarding Mike's parole eligibility, else Mike will be
denied the full benefit of the sentencing regime indicated by the Appeals
Court and prescribed by current legislation.
Thanks,
Pat Cleary