Supreme Court hears arguments on Alexandre Bissonnette parole term


At issue is whether the Quebec City mosque shooter’s period of ineligibility represents cruel and unusual punishment.

Article content

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday on whether Alexandre Bissonnette — the Quebec City mosque shooter who killed six worshipers — can be sentenced to a prison term that goes beyond the standard 25 years of parole ineligibility for someone convicted of murder.

Advertisement 2

Article content

At issue is whether an offender whose parole ineligibility is set beyond 25 years would be subject to cruel and unusual punishment under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Criminal Code allows for life sentences to be served consecutively and for periods of parole ineligibility to be stacked. That means an offender could theoretically remain ineligible for parole for 50 or even 100 years or beyond. Critics argue such sentences are the equivalent of condemning a person to die in a penitentiary.

During a hearing lasting roughly four hours, Canada’s highest court heard from Bissonnette’s lawyer as well as lawyers representing Muslim organizations, Quebec’s attorney general, and the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP), among others.

advertisement 3

Article content

“It is so important for this court to get the balance right,” said Sameha Omer, representing the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

“The community most directly affected by this crime — the Muslims of Quebec City as well as Muslims across this country — are particularly interested in observing how the court’s approach to sentencing in a crime like this will account for the fundamental interests of Canadian Muslims to worship without fear.

“It is important that the avoidance of cruel and usual punishment does not result in a sentence (that is a) ‘discount’ for those who commit multiple murders, especially where the crime targets an identifiable or vulnerable group.”

Almost all offenders convicted of murder in Canada receive the same automatic sentence — life with a period of parole ineligibility set at 25 years — whether they kill one person or, as in Bissonnette’s case, six people.

advertisement 4

Article content

The lawyers who argued in support of consecutive sentences faced tough questions from the court.

“Let me use the word ‘ridiculous’ — sentences that are ridiculous — (where) clearly the person cannot survive that period of time (behind bars). What is the purpose? Does it make sense to give such a sentence,” Chief Justice Richard Wagner asked while Jean-François Paré, representing the attorney general of Quebec, was arguing in support of stacked periods of parole ineligibility.

“The legislative purpose of this provision (in the Criminal Code) was to enable us to reflect the gravity, through sentences, for multiple murders,” Paré replied.

On Jan. 29, 2017, Bissonnette, who was 27 at the time, left his home with two firearms and ammunition and headed to the Islamic Cultural Center in Ste-Foy. When he arrived, he fired on dozens of worshipers, killing six men: Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzeddine Soufiane and Aboubaker Thabti. Five others were left seriously injured.

advertisement 5

Article content

In May 2018, Bissonnette pleaded guilty on 12 counts, including six of the first-degree murders.

On Feb. 8, 2019, Superior Court Justice François Huot set Bissonnette’s period of parole ineligibility at 40 years. The Crown had requested 50 years.

Bissonnette’s lawyer argued for the standard 25-year period of parole ineligibility. Huot wrote he rejected that suggestion because “that recommendation completely obscures the number of people who died, the unspeakable violence used, the underlying motives of the accused and the dramatic repercussions of Bissonnette’s actions on the members of the grieving families, the Muslim community in Quebec and society in general.”

However, the Quebec Court of Appeal later reduced the period to 25 years. It ruled Section 745.51 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because it represents cruel and unusual punishment. The Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) is appealing that decision.

The question put to the Supreme Court is whether 745.51 is invalid and therefore has no force or effect. The court will deliberate before it delivers its decision.

[email protected]

advertisement 1

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user follows comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your e-mail settings.


Leave a Comment