R. v. Aldersley

R. v. Aldersley

The mandatory minimum sentence of 45 days in s.151(1.1)(a) Criminal Code does not violate s.12 of the Charter because it is not grossly disproportionate as applied to the applicant and there are no reasonably foreseeable hypotheticals in which the 45 day minimum would be grossly disproportionate; therefore the Charter challenge is dismissed.

Citation
2018 BCSC 734
Parties
Crown: Regina; Applicant/accused: William Aldersley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Exploitation / Oral Ruling on Charter Application (s.12)
Outcome
Application dismissed; mandatory minimum of 45 days under s.151(1.1)(a) upheld as constitutional in this challenge
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (charter S.12), Sexual Exploitation (s.153 Criminal Code), Gladue Factors, Sentencing Principles (s.718 Et Seq.)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Law Mandatory Minimum Sentences Cruel and Unusual Punishment (charter S.12) Sexual Exploitation (s.153 Criminal Code) Gladue Factors Sentencing Principles (s.718 Et Seq.)

Case Brief

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

William Aldersley

Applicant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Exploitation / Oral Ruling on Charter Application (s.12)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.151(1.1)(a) Criminal Code mandatory minimum of 45 days violates s.12 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the 45 day mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate as applied to the applicant (particularized inquiry)
  3. 3 Whether the 45 day mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical cases

Ratio Decidendi

The mandatory minimum sentence of 45 days in s.151(1.1)(a) Criminal Code does not violate s.12 of the Charter because it is not grossly disproportionate as applied to the applicant and there are no reasonably foreseeable hypotheticals in which the 45 day minimum would be grossly disproportionate; therefore the Charter challenge is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; mandatory minimum of 45 days under s.151(1.1)(a) upheld as constitutional in this challenge

Orders

  • Charter application dismissed
  • No declaration of invalidity under s.52 issued; mandatory minimum sentence remains in force