R. v. Holt

R. v. Holt

The three-year mandatory minimum in s.95(2)(a)(i) infringes s.12 of the Charter because it is grossly disproportionate when assessed against a reasonable hypothetical capturing the regulatory end of s.95; it does not infringe ss.7 or 9; sentencing is adjourned for s.1 justification submissions and a judicial stay is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCSC 2170
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Terrance David Holt
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing and Constitutional Challenge (s.12, S.7, S.9)
Outcome
Court finds s.95(2)(a)(i) infringes s.12 of the Charter; s.7 and s.9 not infringed; sentencing adjourned for s.1 submissions; judicial stay ordered on Count 1.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Section 95 Firearms Possession, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (s.12), Principles of Fundamental Justice (s.7), Arbitrary Detention (s.9), Reasonable Hypothetical Test, Severability Doctrine, Sentence Proportionality
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Charter Law Firearms Law Mandatory Minimum Sentences Section 95 Firearms Possession Cruel and Unusual Punishment (s.12) +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Terrance David Holt

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing and Constitutional Challenge (s.12, S.7, S.9)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.95(2)(a)(i) three-year mandatory minimum violates s.12 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether s.95(2)(a)(i) violates s.7 principles of fundamental justice
  3. 3 Whether s.95(2)(a)(i) violates s.9 protection against arbitrary detention

Ratio Decidendi

The three-year mandatory minimum in s.95(2)(a)(i) infringes s.12 of the Charter because it is grossly disproportionate when assessed against a reasonable hypothetical capturing the regulatory end of s.95; it does not infringe ss.7 or 9; sentencing is adjourned for s.1 justification submissions and a judicial stay is entered on Count 1 pursuant to Kienapple.

Court Disposition

Court finds s.95(2)(a)(i) infringes s.12 of the Charter; s.7 and s.9 not infringed; sentencing adjourned for s.1 submissions; judicial stay ordered on Count 1.

Orders

  • Judicial stay entered on Count 1 pursuant to R. v. Kienapple
  • Declared that s.95(2)(a)(i) infringes s.12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s.1 justification to be determined)