• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Canada - 1-year minimum drug sentence 'cruel and unusual': judge

S.J.B.

S.J.B.

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
6,886
1-year minimum drug sentence 'cruel and unusual': judge
CBC
January 24th, 2014

A B.C. provincial court judge has adjourned the case of a small time drug dealer to give the Crown a chance to justify the law that says anyone convicted of drug trafficking, who has already served time, must go to jail for a year.

In his written ruling, Judge Joseph Galati says, for some people, that amounts to cruel and unusual punishment contrary to section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In September of last year, the provincial court judge convicted Vancouver resident Joseph Ryan Lloyd on three counts of trafficking two grams of crack cocaine, six grams of methamphetamine and a half gram of heroin.

It wasn't Lloyd's first trafficking offence and under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new tough-on-crime legislation, the resident of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, should now serve at least a year in jail.

Court documents show Lloyd, who is 25 years old with a Grade 10 education, has 21 prior convictions which include fraud, forgery, theft, assault, possession of a prohibited weapon and a prior drug conviction.
Click to expand...

Read the full story here.

I am so glad to see this!
 
Yeah, looks like we're finally moving in the right direction. (Hopefully)
 
Court documents show Lloyd, who is 25 years old with a Grade 10 education, has 21 prior convictions which include fraud, forgery, theft, assault, possession of a prohibited weapon and a prior drug conviction.
Click to expand...
I get it for minor drug offences but this guy has a pretty hefty list.
I wouldn't say that a minimum sentence of a year is bad for this guy.
Sure drug trafficking alone shouldn't carry a sentence like that but this guy seems to have a violent past.
 
.:Holy::Toast:. said:
I get it for minor drug offences but this guy has a pretty hefty list.
I wouldn't say that a minimum sentence of a year is bad for this guy.
Sure drug trafficking alone shouldn't carry a sentence like that but this guy seems to have a violent past.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the judge stated that he would have given this guy a sentence of 12 to 18 months. But he is striking down the law not because of this specific case, but because he feels it would be cruel and unusual in SOME cases. For example, a homeless addict who had been caught and convicted for selling a dime-bag of cocaine, and was then caught doing the same thing a second time, would be liable for a mandatory one-year sentence, even if he had no prior convictions.
 
Props for taking the initiative but is this really the guy to make an example out of?
It will just go to show how weak our justice system is, the man has committed numerous violent crimes, he should not be viewed as special just because the judge is taking consideration of other offendors
 
.:Holy::Toast:. said:
the man has committed numerous violent crimes
Click to expand...

where does it say that? all i see is an assault charge and he was carrying a knife, which is really not an uncommon thing for a drug dealer. for all we know he could have picked up the assault charge in a bar fight
 
.:Holy::Toast:. said:
Props for taking the initiative but is this really the guy to make an example out of?
It will just go to show how weak our justice system is, the man has committed numerous violent crimes, he should not be viewed as special just because the judge is taking consideration of other offendors
Click to expand...

What this defendant may or may not have done in the past is irrelevant in the context of this judge striking down a law. The judge is making this judgement because he considers that law to be "cruel and unusual" in any number of theoretical cases. The defendant could have murdered three dozen people in the past and it would not have changed the basis for this judgement.
 
Perhaps it is, but this guy probably isn't the best example of a drug charge being considered cruel and unusual punishment. He does have a laundry list of past offenses.

And to say what he "may or may not" have done things in the past, well according to the court they must assume he did all 21 things he was convicted of, the judge isn't suppose to sit there and give someone who was convicted of crimes the benefit of doubt that he maybe didn't do it, that makes no sense.

Sorry to tell you but this is also how the general public will view this ruling. If you wanted a poster boy for laxer drug laws then it'd be better suited to have someone who doesn't present to the public as a loser who probably already has been afforded multiple breaks from the penal system.

All that aside, they really searched this guy for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk? That really sucks. And I don't think he deserves a year in jail for what happened. But to take a step forward in drug legislation requires convincing a lot more people than just the drug users that the ruling is a good one.
 
RTrain said:
Perhaps it is, but this guy probably isn't the best example of a drug charge being considered cruel and unusual punishment. He does have a laundry list of past offenses.

And to say what he "may or may not" have done things in the past, well according to the court they must assume he did all 21 things he was convicted of, the judge isn't suppose to sit there and give someone who was convicted of crimes the benefit of doubt that he maybe didn't do it, that makes no sense.

Sorry to tell you but this is also how the general public will view this ruling. If you wanted a poster boy for laxer drug laws then it'd be better suited to have someone who doesn't present to the public as a loser who probably already has been afforded multiple breaks from the penal system.

All that aside, they really searched this guy for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk? That really sucks. And I don't think he deserves a year in jail for what happened. But to take a step forward in drug legislation requires convincing a lot more people than just the drug users that the ruling is a good one.
Click to expand...

The defendant here is a complete non-factor in this judgement. The judge is ruling against the law itself, NOT the punishment for this particular individual. It doesn't matter if this guy is a good example or not because he's not even going to be part of the discussion when this ruling is challenged in higher courts.
 
The judge has a problem with the following:

"Anyone convicted of drug trafficking, who has already served time for a drug-related crime (including simple possession), must go to jail for a year."

Say someone had a record for drug possession, and did some time behind bars for it. If the same person was later caught dealing half a gram of weed to an undercover cop - he would have to serve at least a year in prison (no exceptions).

For the record, I have a huge problem with it as well.

For those of you who don't know, the current Canadian government (a posse of dirty conservatards) enacted tougher drug laws back in November 2012.

Can't stand Harper, or his cunt wad of a Health Minister, Rona Ambrose.
 
thujone said:
where does it say that? all i see is an assault charge and he was carrying a knife, which is really not an uncommon thing for a drug dealer. for all we know he could have picked up the assault charge in a bar fight
Click to expand...

Exactly! I got hit with assault with a weapon just for having a stanley knife on me during a scrap even though i never pulled the thing. Thank fuck i got off for that one.
 
ro4eva said:
The judge has a problem with the following:

"Anyone convicted of drug trafficking, who has already served time for a drug-related crime (including simple possession), must go to jail for a year."

Say someone had a record for drug possession, and did some time behind bars for it. If the same person was later caught dealing half a gram of weed to an undercover cop - he would have to serve at least a year in prison (no exceptions).
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not even necessary to have served time:

Trafficking in substance

5. (1) No person shall traffic in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV or in any substance represented or held out by that person to be such a substance.

(2) No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV.

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)
(a) subject to paragraph (a.1), if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
(i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
...
(D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or...
Click to expand...

That said, this law doesn't apply to trafficking of cannabis unless the amount is over 3 kilograms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top