Mandatory minimum penalty for firing gun at house unconstitutional: Supreme Court

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for firing a gun at a house is unconstitutional because it could constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.

In a companion ruling on Friday, the top court said two other minimum sentences, both for armed robbery offenses, do not constitute excessive punishment and are therefore constitutional.

The Supreme Court also affirmed and developed the framework for balancing challenges to the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum sentence under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provision versus cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

The first ruling came in the case of Jesse Dallas Hills, who pleaded guilty to four counts stemming from an incident in May 2014 in Lethbridge, Alta, in which he brandished a baseball bat and shot a car with a rifle and that Window smashed into a vehicle and fired shots into a family home.

Hills had consumed large amounts of prescription drugs and alcohol and said he had no recollection of the events.

He argued that the then-current minimum sentence of four years for recklessly firing a firearm into a home or other building violated the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

A judge agreed and Hills was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, but the Alberta Court of Appeals reversed the finding of unconstitutionality and the sentence was increased to four years.

When the Supreme Court allowed Hill’s appeal, he said the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate because a young person could fire a paintball gun at a house as part of a game.

“The mandatory minimum cannot be justified by deterrence and denunciation alone, and the punishment shows a total disregard for criminal norms,” Justice Sheilah Martin wrote on behalf of a majority of the court.

“The mandatory prison sentence would have significant damaging effects on a juvenile offender and it would shake the conscience of Canadians to learn that a criminal could be sentenced to four years in prison for firing a paintball gun at a home.”

In any event, the Liberal government lifted that particular mandatory minimum sentence, along with several others, after the appeal was heard.

In the accompanying ruling on two other Alberta cases, the Supreme Court said mandatory minimum sentences for two armed robberies did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The first offense, robbery committed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.

The second, robbery with an ordinary firearm, carried a mandatory minimum sentence of four years at the time the appeal was heard, but that minimum sentence has since been waived.

A Supreme Court majority said Parliament has the power to enact mandatory minimum penalties that signal disregard for the life and safety of others while handling firearms is simply unacceptable.

A general deterrent is also required when a person is endangering the safety of others by carrying a firearm, the court added.

The framework that applies to challenging mandatory minimum requirements under the charter’s prohibition of cruel treatment requires a two-stage investigation, the top court said.

First, a court must determine an appropriate and proportionate punishment for the crime, taking into account the goals and principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code.

The court must then ask whether the provision in question requires it to impose a penalty grossly disproportionate compared to the reasonable and proportionate penalty, the Supreme Court said.

This exercise involves considering the scope and scope of the crime, the impact of the punishment on the offender, and the punishment and its objectives.

Martin pointed out that the two-part assessment can either focus on the actual perpetrator in court or on another person in a “reasonably foreseeable” case — for example, a young person shooting a BB gun or paintball gun house fires.

“A reasonable hypothetical scenario must be constructed with care,” she warned.

However, Martin said that the desire expressed by some members of the Alberta Court of Appeals to remove the Court’s use of reasonably foreseeable scenarios is “completely contrary to both precedent and principle.”

This report from The Canadian Press was first published on January 27, 2023.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press