Stricter parole rules for some killers are ‘just and appropriate’, Ottawa will argue in Supreme Court

A Conservative-era law that allows longer periods of parole ineligibility for people convicted of multiple murders is constitutional, the federal government will argue before the Supreme Court this spring.

The high court will hear arguments in March on the constitutionality of a 2011 provision introduced by the Harper administration that allows judges to stack consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for those convicted of murdering more than one person.

The case involves Alexandre Bissonnette, who pleaded guilty to murdering six people and attempting to kill six others at the Islamic Cultural Center in Quebec City in 2017.

Convicted murderers are automatically sentenced to life in prison and are not eligible to apply for parole for a set period. Before 2011, that period was 25 years for first-degree murder, regardless of how many people they killed.

At his trial, the judge ordered Bissonnette to serve at least 40 years in prison before he could apply for parole, a decision that was appealed by both the defense and the Crown.

Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane and Azzedine Soufiane were killed in the mosque attack.

The Quebec Court of Appeals ruled in Bissonnette’s favor, finding the 2011 provision constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and reinstated the 25-year parole ineligibility period.

The Supreme Court appeal pits those arguing for the provision against groups who say it is similar to the death penalty, which was abolished in Canada decades ago.

The high court’s ruling may also have an impact on another high-profile case. The sentencing hearing for Alek Minassian, who was convicted of murdering 10 people in Toronto’s Yonge Street van attack in 2018, is now on hold until the Supreme Court rules in the Bissonnette case.

While the Trudeau administration has said it wants to dismantle Harper-era criminal justice policies, it also argues that the 2011 provision is constitutional, since it does not require judges to accumulate consecutive terms of disqualification for parole, but rather it simply gives them the option to do so. .

“In some cases, the accumulation of periods of ineligibility is just and appropriate,” says a factum filed with the Supreme Court by Canada’s attorney general.

Several provincial attorneys general, along with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Toronto Police Association, also argue that the provision should be kept.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims argues in its factum that the pre-2011 sentencing regime provided a “discount” to people convicted of multiple murders. He maintains that the accumulation of periods of ineligibility for parole is constitutional, and that the number of victims and the circumstances of the crimes must be taken into account in sentencing.

“What many in Quebec are asking is this question of justice, and whether the victims of the Quebec City mosque shooting will get their justice,” the council’s executive director, Mustafa Farooq, told the Star.

Legal and civil rights groups contend that the 2011 provision is cruel and unusual punishment, and that the parole system already ensures that those who continue to pose a risk to society are not released from prison.

“The prospect of a life without hope, where the only ‘liberation’ a person can hope for is their own death, begs the question: which is worse, the death penalty or a sentence designed to make a person wish for death? ? says the factum of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

“I think this particular policy falls under the umbrella of the draconian and Americanized sentencing policies of the Harper era, and I wish our current administration would see it that way as well,” CCLA attorney Stephanie DiGiuseppe said in an interview. .

A Justice Department statement said the attorney general’s stance on the 2011 provision “is consistent with the long-standing principle” that he upholds the constitutionality of federal legislation when challenged in court.