Earlier this week, a two day sentencing hearing commenced in Moncton for Justin Bourque, the 24-year old who pleaded guilty to 3 counts of first-degree murder in connection with the deaths of 3 police officers in Moncton earlier this year.
CBC has reported that as a result of a change of Criminal Code sentencing laws in 2011, the ineligibility period of parole for Bourque for these convictions may be as high as 75 years. Crown prosecutor Cameron Gunn is reported to be seeking the maximum parole ineligibility period, whereas defence attorney David Lutz has argued for a parole ineligibility period of 50 years. In argument, Lutz stated that anything besides 50 years would be academic as Bourque would be 99 before being eligible for parole under the maximum ineligibility period. More can be read on these proceedings here.
Today in an interview with the CBC, St. Thomas University criminology professor Karla O’Regan weighed in on the sentencing hearing and called for a more methodological and uniform approach to criminal justice sentencing rather than basing it on potent emotions and reactions of fear. Her entire interview can be seen here.
The UK prison system is under fire this month after a comprehensive report was released.
The report details a 69% rise in self-inflicted deaths in prison in just one year, totaling 88. One article cites 125 suicides in 20 months, averaging on 6 suicides a month. The report also details a 14% rise in prisoner-on-prisoner assault, including a 38% rise in serious assault among adult male prisoners. Additionally, it lists a rising problem with drugs.
The report blames overcrowding as the root cause of the problem. The prison system is currently using 99% of “the usable operational capacity”. One group also attributes the problems to massive budget cuts. While the numbers are uncertain, between 27 and 41% of prison jobs have been cut since the election of the Cameron government. Meanwhile, employees who have spoken publicly about the safety implications these job cuts have created are allegedly being reprimanded and may loose their jobs.
For more, see here.
Quebec’s student uprising in the spring and summer of 2012, the Maple Spring, brought new laws and protest response tactics that resulted in hundreds of protestors experiencing fines, detention and arrest. Now, Quebec courts may be feeling the strain.
On October 23, 2014, a municipal court in Montreal dismissed the cases of 75 self-represented litigants who were fined and detained at a protest in April 2012. Judge Gilles Pelletier’s decision rested on the fact that such fines, handed out in large quantities, were creating unreasonable delays in the system. Without a plan provided by the Crown to end the cases within a reasonable time period, Judge Pelletier found the massive resources and time required to process the tickets to be unjustifiable.
The 75 litigants in question had been fined under Montreal bylaw P-6, which was amended during the Maple Spring to allow police to fine protestors wearing masks or people gathering for a protest where the itinerary had not been provided to police.
P-6 continues to be a controversial. In August 2014, the Quebec Superior Court authorized eight class action law suits against the City of Montreal involving police response to protests. The class in question includes over 1600 protestors who were ticketed and claim to have been mistreated by police.
In February 2014, The Guardian reported that the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Department) accidentally released the personal information of 10,000 people seeking asylum in Australia. Asylum seekers’ full names, nationalities, location, and arrival date were inadvertently posted on the Department’s public website. The egregious mistake has been labelled as “one of the most serious privacy breaches in Australia’s history.” The breach raised serious questions regarding the possibility of asylum seekers falling prey to retributive actions if they returned to their countries of origin.
In addition to security issues, the breach highlights the Department’s failure to adhere to privacy laws. Australia’s Privacy Act regulates the government’s collection, use, disclosure, and storage of personal information. One of the guiding principles of the Privacy Act requires government organizations in possession of personal information to “take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect the information… from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.” In a statement reported by the The Guardian, the Department acknowledged that the personal information was “vulnerable to unauthorised access,” and internal investigations were ongoing.
Following the breach, several asylum seekers applied to the Federal Circuit Court for orders preventing their deportation and mandating that the security breach be considered when their claims for asylum were processed. The Federal Circuit Court delivered conflicting judgments pertaining to the privacy breaches. Appeals from the Federal Circuit Court judgments were heard together on Friday, October 24, 2014.
The Guardian reported that the Federal Court held that the appeals should be allowed for two of the claimants and the matter was referred back to the Federal Circuit Court. The Federal Court also determined that the Minister of Immigration was obliged to pay costs. The Federal Court Judges took the opportunity to criticize the Minister’s handling of the privacy breach. In particular, the Federal Court was critical of a letter sent to asylum seekers stating that the Department would examine the privacy breach’s impact on the claimants “as part of its normal processes.” However, the Minister’s counsel conceded during the appeal that there was, in fact, no “normal processes” in place.
The written judgment, while not available at the time this article was posted, will be published here in due course.
Police in New Zealand have begun deploying advanced roadside technology called the Booze Bus Biometrics (BBB) system to better identify drunk drivers.
According to Police Minister Michael Woodhouse, “The BBB system will enable police to confirm, within minutes, the identities of people in the system that they intend to charge with drink-driving offences by electronically scanning fingerprints, taking digital photographs and comparing the data to existing police records.”
The stated purpose of this new tool is to aid in identifying high-risk drivers and recidivist drunk drivers at the roadside so that police will be able to respond quickly and appropriately to the circumstances, and to ensure alleged offenders are charged appropriately from the outset.
Following a trial of the BBB system in Wellington earlier this year, the new technology is set to be installed in all 21 of the police’s booze buses by the end of November.
Under the new biometrics system police claim that will only able to keep the data they collect if an offender is convicted.
However, with new police capabilities comes the risk of abuse. Due to the ease of use of this new technology police may use it to unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of more innocent drivers than before in their mission to catch drunk drivers.
Read more here.
Public Safety Minister Stephen Blaney will table a bill when Parliament returns next week to expand the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s powers. The legislation is a response to the growing number of Canadian citizens traveling abroad to fight for extremist groups like ISIS, as well as a Supreme Court decision in May that declined to grant a class privilege to CSIS informants.
The bill is expected to contain three key provisions:
Read the rest of this entry »
Glen Eugene Assoun was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder for the killing of Brenda Way, his ex girlfriend, who was stabbed to death and found in a Dartmouth, NS apartment.
After appealing the conviction several times and exhausting all appeal options, his case arrived at the desk of Mark Green, a lawyer with the Federal Justice Department’s Criminal Conviction Review Group who reviews cases where a wrongful conviction is alleged. After a preliminary report into the case, Green has found that there “may be a reasonable basis” to conclude that there was a miscarriage of justice.
Assoun received an automatic life sentence and must serve 18 ½ years before he can apply for parole. Assoun had always maintained his innocence, from trial through a series of appeals. Upon exhausting his appeal chances, his last attempt was to apply to the Justice Department’s Criminal Conviction Review Group, under section 696.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which provides for a chance of reassessment where a miscarriage of justice is alleged.
Having deemed that there “may be a reasonable basis” to conclude a miscarriage of justice, Assoun’s case now moves into an investigative phase. Assoun, meanwhile, has applied for interim release from prison, which the Public Prosecution Service will oppose. That application is set to be heard in court this fall.
For the full story, click HERE.
Since 1991 there have tragically been more than 50 youth suicides in Nunavut representing 11% of all suicides in the territory. This is in comparison to a national youth suicide rate (15 years and younger) of less then one percent.
Read the rest of this entry »
Last Wednesday, the “National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014″ passed both houses of the Australian Parliament and is now awaiting Royal Assent. This new law dramatically increases the powers of Australia’s domestic spy agency, ASIO, giving it the ability to monitor all of the Australian Internet with a single warrant. It could also send anyone who “recklessly” discloses information that “relates to a special intelligence operation” to jail for up to 10 years. And any operation can be declared as “special”. Many lawyers and academics have criticized the law for being too broad and fear the agency will abuse this power.
Read more here.
On October 2nd, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General). The Court held that BC legislation that forced parties to pay fees in order to use courtrooms for trials infringed upon individuals’ constitutional right of access to justice.
The case concerned a plaintiff in a family law dispute, who was charged $3600 in fees. That amount was roughly equal to the monthly income of the family.
In its reasoning, the Court found the BC legislation unconstitutional, and ultimately recognized a constitutional right of access to justice and that legislation that charged fees of this sort in order to access justice, was unconstitutional.
To read the decision of the Supreme Court, click HERE.