Skip to main content

Canada Ontario court tosses retroactive Harper-era change to ‘faint-hope’ rule for convicted murderers

A change by the former Conservative government that made it harder for murderers serving life sentences to apply for parole is unconstitutional if applied retroactively, Ontario’s top court ruled on Thursday.

The binding decision from the Court of Appeal – the latest in a string of decisions undoing the former government’s tough on crime agenda – means a woman who killed her husband can now apply for release under the so-called “faint hope” law.

When Cherrylle Dell was convicted of first-degree murder in February 2001, the trial judge gave her the obligatory sentence: life in prison without parole eligibility for 25 years. Under the rules existing at the time, she would have been allowed to ask a jury to reduce the ineligibility period once she had served 15 years.

Story continues below advertisement

However, in 2011, the government of ex-prime minister Stephen Harper changed the law, to require a convict to first convince a judge of the “substantial likelihood” a jury would agree to the possibility of earlier parole. Previously, a judge first had only to find a “reasonable prospect of success.”

Dell, of Killaloe, Ont., argued the change unjustifiably violated her constitutional rights by inflicting harsher punishment on her than when she had been sentenced. The Appeal Court agreed.

“The screening mechanism substantially decreased her chances of obtaining some reduction in parole ineligibility,” the court said in its ruling.

The “faint-hope” clause was first enacted in 1976 following abolition of the death penalty and introduction of the current mandatory life sentence for murder without parole for 25 years for first-degree murder and without parole for 10 years for second-degree murder.

The Liberal government in 1997 first introduced judicial screening to the faint-hope process. It required a judge to decide that a parole-eligibility application had a “reasonable prospect” of success, thereby weeding out those cases where an inmate had no realistic chance of succeeding.

The Tory government repealed the provision in December 2011 and put in place the stiffer judicial test with retroactive effect.

In 2013, more than 15 years after her sentence began, Dell made her application, but the law now required the enhanced vetting by a screening judge before she could put her case to a jury.

Story continues below advertisement

The judge, Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger in May 2015, ruled the change was constitutional. Maranger also rejected Dell’s application on the grounds that it would likely not succeed before a jury. Dell turned to the province’s top court, arguing she should have been allowed to take her case directly to a jury.

Essentially, Dell argued the provision violated a ban on retroactively increasing punishment for a crime. The government counter-argued that her sentence remained exactly as imposed and the new rules – if an infringement – were justifiable in a democracy. The Appeal Court rejected the view, saying the government had gone too far.

“Those provisions go far beyond the screening out of meritless applications and foreclose applications that have a reasonable prospect of success before the jury,” the court said. “In doing so, they overshoot, by a large margin, the objective of the legislation.”

The impact on affected inmates, the Appeal Court found, was “very real and significant.”

“The 2011 amendments to the judicial screening process imposed a significantly more stringent test,” the Appeal Court said. “The 2011 amendments took from the appellant a reasonable expectation that, after 15 years in custody, she would be entitled to ask the community, as represented by the jury, for leniency as reflected in a reduction in her parole ineligibility.”

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter