Modèle:SentencingBrief PART VI-A

PART VI-A: JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS(e)

[X] A joint recommendation that is presented to the Court can only be adopted where the court is satisfied, after hearing all the evidence and submissions, that the proposed sentence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. This "public interest test" was most recently outlined in R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. Justice Moldaver, writing for the Court, outlined the test as follows:

[32] Under the public interest test, a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. ...

[33] In Druken, at para. 29, the court held that a joint submission will bring the administration of justice into disrepute or be contrary to the public interest if, despite the public interest considerations that support imposing it, it is so “markedly out of line with the expectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case that they would view it as a break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”. And, as stated by the same court in R. v. B.O.2, 2010 NLCA 19, at para. 56 (CanLII), when assessing a joint submission, trial judges should “avoid rendering a decision that causes an informed and reasonable public to lose confidence in the institution of the courts”.

[34] In my view, these powerful statements capture the essence of the public interest test developed by the Martin Committee. They emphasize that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly, a conclusion with which I agree. Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold — and for good reason, as I shall explain.

[X] Justice Moldaver described the importance of having a high threshold to reject a joint recommendation:

[41] But as I have said, for joint submissions to be possible, the parties must have a high degree of confidence that they will be accepted. Too much doubt and the parties may choose instead to accept the risks of a trial or a contested sentencing hearing. The accused in particular will be reluctant to forgo a trial with its attendant safeguards, including the crucial ability to test the strength of the Crown’s case, if joint submissions come to be seen as an insufficiently certain alternative.

[X] Under the Anthony-Cook approach to a joint recommendation, an added obligation is placed on both counsel to provide sufficient information about the offence, offender, and circumstances of the proceedings that brought about the agreement:

[53] Third, when faced with a contentious joint submission, trial judges will undoubtedly want to know about the circumstances leading to the joint submission — and in particular, any benefits obtained by the Crown or concessions made by the accused. The greater the benefits obtained by the Crown, and the more concessions made by the accused, the more likely it is that the trial judge should accept the joint submission, even though it may appear to be unduly lenient. For example, if the joint submission is the product of an agreement by the accused to assist the Crown or police, or an evidentiary weakness in the Crown’s case, a very lenient sentence might not be contrary to the public interest. On the other hand, if the joint submission resulted only from the accused’s realization that conviction was inevitable, the same sentence might cause the public to lose confidence in the criminal justice system.

...

[55] This is not to say that counsel must inform the trial judge of “their negotiating positions or the substance of their discussions leading to the agreement” (R. v. Tkachuk, 2001 ABCA 243 (CanLII), 293 A.R. 171, at para. 34). But counsel must be able to inform the trial judge why the proposed sentence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. If they do not, they run the risk that the trial judge will reject the joint submission.

...

[57] A thorough justification of the joint submission also has an important public perception component. Unless counsel put the considerations underlying the joint submission on the record, “though justice may be done, it may not have the appearance of being done; the public may suspect, rightly or wrongly, that an impropriety has occurred” (C. C. Ruby, G. J. Chan and N. R. Hasan, Sentencing (8th ed. 2012), at p. 73).

[X] Should the Court be inclined to reject the joint recommendation, the sentencing judge cannot simply declare the agreement inappropriate and proceed to determine a fit and proper sentence. The Court must provide notice to counsel that there are concerns and invite counsel to make further submissions, invite a potential withdraw of guilty plea, and only after that must give "clear and cogent" reasons for the rejection.

[58] Fourth, if the trial judge is not satisfied with the sentence proposed by counsel, “fundamental fairness dictates that an opportunity be afforded to counsel to make further submissions in an attempt to address the . . . judge’s concerns before the sentence is imposed” (G.W.C., at para. 26). The judge should notify counsel that he or she has concerns, and invite further submissions on those concerns, including the possibility of allowing the accused to withdraw his or her guilty plea, as the trial judge did in this case.

[60] Finally, trial judges who remain unsatisfied by counsel’s submissions should provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission. These reasons will help explain to the parties why the proposed sentence was unacceptable, and may assist them in the resolution of future cases. Reasons will also facilitate appellate review.

A. Benefits to Crown and Concessions by Defence

[X]

B. Repute to Administration of Justice

[X]

C. Not Contrary to the Public Interest

[X]