Voir la source de Principes de saut, de pas et d'écart

[[en:Jump,_Step_and_Gap_Principles]]
{{Currency2|January|2014}}
{{LevelOne}}
{{HeaderPrinciples}}
==Principes généraux==
The "jump", "step", and "gap" principles are principles designed to limit the range of appropriate sentences for offenders who have a prior related records. They are derived from several principles including proportionality, rehabilitation, restraint under s. 718(d), and the totality principle under s. 718.2(c).<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bernard|flrt1|2011 NSCA 53 (CanLII)|275 CCC (3d) 545}}{{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}{{atL|flrt1|26}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Frigault v R|fpvch|2012 NBCA 8 (CanLII)|991 APR 266}}{{perNBCA|Quigg JA}}{{atL|fpvch|17}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Robitaille|1dc39|1993 CanLII 2561 (BCCA)|31 BCAC 7}}{{perBCCA|Lambert JA}}{{atL|1dc39|9}} ("... the theory that sentences should go up only in moderate steps is a theory which rests on the sentencing principles of rehabilitation. It should be only in cases where rehabilitation is a significant sentencing factor.")<br>
</ref>

"Progressive sentencing" is the approach to sentencing wherein harsher sentences should be imposed on repeat offenders. It is not a separate legal principle but rather a manifestation of specific deterrence.<REf>
{{CanLIIR|Robinson|jfgd0|2021 NSPC 20 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|Buckle J}}{{atL|jfgd0|24}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wright|2ch7n|2010 MBCA 80 (CanLII)|261 CCC (3d) 333}}{{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|McCrea|1xcmm|2008 BCCA 227 (CanLII)|256 BCAC 312}}{{perBCCA|Smith JA}}{{atL|1xcmm|11}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Calliou||2019 ABCA 365 (CanLII)}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Jump/Step Principle==
The "jump" or "step" principle (also called the "ladder principle" or the "principle of incremental sentencing") states that subsequent sentences passed should not be disproportionate to the prior offence (ie. a "jump" in sentence). A subsequent offence should have an incremental increase proportionate to frequency of the repeated offences.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|White|1rvsv|2007 NLCA 44 (CanLII)|822 APR 351}}{{perNLCA|Cameron JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Muyser|22xkv|2009 ABCA 116 (CanLII)|457 AR 216}}{{perABCA|Fraser JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Murphy|2fn2v|2011 NLCA 16 (CanLII)|[2011] NJ No 43 (CA)}}{{perNLCA|Welsh JA}}</ref> 
The purpose of this rule is to avoid having the accused re-punished for past bad acts.<ref>
{{supra1|Muyser}}{{atL|22xkv|8}}<br>
</ref>

A significant jump in sentence is inconsistent with rehabilitation where that is a significant factor in sentence.<ref>
{{supra1|White}}{{atsL|1rvsv|5| à 8}}</ref>

The subsequent similar sentence must be progressive.<ref>
{{Supra1|Muyser}}
</ref>
A dramatic increase in sentence (ie. a "jump") due to a recent prior similar record would violate this principle.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Borde|1c062|2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA)|63 OR (3d) 417}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{atL|1c062|39}} ("[the jump] principle cautions a court against imposing a dramatically more severe sentence than the sentences imposed upon the offender for similar offences in the recent past. It has little application where the severity of the offender’s crimes shows a dramatic increase in violence and seriousness.")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Courtney|frz4k|2012 ONCA 478 (CanLII)|294 OAC 346}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
</ref> 

The jump principle will be violated when a sentence goes from 2 years to 4 years on subsequent conviction.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Re Morand and Simpson|g7b2r|1959 CanLII 235 (SK CA)| (1959), 30 CR 298 (Sask CA)}}{{perSKCA|Martin CJ}}<br>
See {{CanLIIRx|Clark|1jxww|2005 ABPC 40 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Lamoureux J}} citing Ruby on Sentencing
</ref> 
Or where the sentence goes from probation to 8 years.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Sloane|, [1973] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 202}}<br>
See {{supra1|Clark}} citing Ruby on Sentencing
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Exceptions===
The jump rule does not apply where the index offence is greatly more serious than the prior offences.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Borde|1c062|2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA)|63 OR (3d) 417}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{atL|1c062|39}} ("[The jump principle] has little application where the severity of the offender’s crimes shows a dramatic increase in violence and seriousness.")<br>
{{CanLIIRx|JG|1lr4j|2005 CanLII 36170 (ON SC)}}{{perONSC|R. Smith J.}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Courtney|frz4k|2012 ONCA 478 (CanLII)|294 OAC 346}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|frz4k|10| à 11}}</ref>
The jump principle has greater application for sentences on the lower range of seriousness as there is a greater flexibility in what is an appropriate sentence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Muyser|22xkv|2009 ABCA 116 (CanLII)|457 AR 216}}{{perABCA|Fraser JA}}{{atL|22xkv|9}}<br> 
</ref>

The jump principle is of "less utility" when dealing with an accused "with a lengthy criminal record on multiple convictions."<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Frigault v R|fpvch|2012 NBCA 8 (CanLII)|991 APR 266}}{{perNBCA|Quigg JA}}<br>
</ref>
And also where rehabilitation is not realistic and record is related to the offence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Lohnes|1qnz5|2007 NSCA 24 (CanLII)|217 CCC (3d) 392}}{{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}}{{atsL|1qnz5|40|}}, {{atsL-np|1qnz5|42}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Thomson|fxbhx|2013 BCCA 220 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Harris JA}}{{atsL|fxbhx|7| à 8}}<br>
</ref>

A jump in sentence may be permissible where a previously lenient sentence was not effective in deterring the offender.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Westerman|, 2002 CarswellOnt 1041 (C.J.)}}{{ats-|28 to 30, 44 to 49}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Ferrigon|1rfzp|2007 CanLII 16828 (ONSC)|, 2007 CarswellOnt 3072 (S.C.)}}{{perONSC|Molloy J}}{{atsL|1rfzp|8| à 12}}<br>
</ref>

The jump principle cannot trump the principle of proportionality.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Blair|1m3vk|2005 ABCA 414 (CanLII)|380 AR 383}}{{perABCA|Costigan JA}}{{atL|1m3vk|10}}</ref>

It can be concluded that the prior sentence was not sufficiently deterrent and so the sentence for the new offence should be increased to focus on specific deterrence.

{{reflist|2}}

===Step-up Principle===
The closely related "step-up" principle (primarily employed in British Columbia) suggests that subsequent sentences should be increased in "moderate steps" or else it may interfere with rehabilitation.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bush (D.F)|1p29n|2006 BCCA 350 (CanLII)|70 WCB (2d) 287}}{{perBCCA|Ryan JA}}{{atL|1p29n|9}} ("the principle … that is often used to describe the philosophy that sentences should usually increase in moderate steps since a sudden, large increase in the length of a sentence may interfere with the goal of rehabilitation, if that is the focus of the sentence.")</ref>
This principle however should not be applied where denunciation and deterrence are the primary goals.<ref>
{{ibid1|Bush}}{{atL|1p29n|9}} ("The step-up principle has little application where a sentencing judge determines that the offence in question calls for a sentence in which the primary goals are denunciation and deterrence")</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Gap Principle==
The "gap principle" directs courts to take into consideration the gaps of time between offences.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1p11l|2006 NSCA 95 (CanLII)|211 CCC (3d) 107}}{{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}{{atL|1p11l|36}}: extensive citation from Ruby on Sentencing</ref> 
It gives credit to someone who has made an effort to avoid criminal charges.
<ref>see §8.83 of Clayton Ruby, Sentencing, 7th ed. (Markham:  LexisNexis Canada Inc, 2008) </ref>

The purpose of the principle is to ensure that an offender "who has rectified past behaviour for a substantial period of time should be considered as having better prospects for individual deterrence and rehabilitation."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacLeod|1gmn6|2004 NSCA 31 (CanLII)|182 CCC (3d) 470}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}}{{atL|1gmn6|25}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Voir également==
* [[Facteurs de détermination de la peine liés au délinquant#Criminal Record]]