In a motion filed Friday before the court, the defense recalled that the Supreme Court declared other minimum sentences unconstitutional, because they deprive judges of the necessary latitude to pronounce sentences tailored to each individual. and the circumstances of the crime to prevent them from being violent. and unusual.
This was the case two weeks ago when the country’s highest court declared the six-month minimum sentence for computer seduction unconstitutional, finding it violated section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect citizens against cruel and unusual punishment.
Analyzing the objectives set by the Parliament in its law, the court qualified in these terms the one that requires judges to promote the principles of criticism and prevention: “Although a judge can provide important weighted to other purposes of sentencing, especially social reintegration, the provision (in section 718.01 of the Criminal Code) limits judicial discretion, because judges cannot give them equal or greater priority than in ‘the goals of criticism and prevention. »
This principle is applied to the computer lure that ensured that the minimum sentence of six months was declared unconstitutional, the defense wanted the same for the crime of wanting to obtain the sexual services of a minor for payment. To achieve this, the defense submitted the recipe that was also formulated by the Supreme Court earlier this year, in January, in the Hills decision: “The court must (1) ask itself what constitutes a fair and proportionate sentence in relation to the purposes and principles of sentencing; and (2) consider whether the challenged provision requires the imposition of a sentence that is disproportionate, and not excessive, in relation to a reasonable and proportionate sentence .(…) When the court concludes that the period of imprisonment stipulated in the provision establishing a mandatory minimum sentence is grossly disproportionate, the provision in question is contrary to art. 12”.
An impeccable citizen
In the case of Yvan Truchon, the defense remembers that the 69-year-old man has no criminal record, that he has always been an asset to society and even a community and sports leader; that the accusations had many effects on his social and family life; that it has been more than three years since then and he has committed no further offenses and has complied with his conditions of release. He emphasized that the crime itself does not have any minor victim, but a fictitious victim, a fake minor prostitute who is a policeman, and that everyone is limited by communication.
In addition, having sex with a minor over 16 years old is legal in Canada and in this case, the sin wants to pay for doing it. However, the evidence revealed that the accused had often used adult prostitutes in the past and that in this case, the punishment was a simple fine.
“In this case, it is clear that a citizen with knowledge would not understand that a person with the same characteristics as the accused of the applicant will be given a minimum sentence of six months in prison,” concluded the two lawyer
The two parties will meet on Tuesday afternoon before Judge Pierre Simard to choose a date to debate the request. Regardless of the outcome, the debate will only be theoretical because the defense is appealing three decisions given by Judge Simard on the motions to stop the proceedings, the police entrapment, and the guilty party. that judgment.
In addition, the Court of Appeal accepted, Monday morning, that the defense may raise questions of fact and not just questions of law to appeal the guilty verdict given by Judge Simard on March 11 In other words, lawyers can question the magistrate’s interpretation of the evidence. The representative of the Crown, Me Sébastien Vallée, did not object.