JadeSLeuth
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,844
- Reaction score
- 40
[video=twitter;832684188641882114]https://twitter.com/meyer_lucas/status/832684188641882114[/video]
I think Sanders is making a good argument, and that Ross made a legal error in stating that sentencing for the Liknes couple could be consecutive.
In reading just some of the law related to consecutive sentencing, it looks like it doesn't apply because there was one event. I don't really agree that because Nathan wasn't part of the plan, it is a separate event. I think that consecutive sentencing leaves the door wide open for an appeal based on whether the three murders were one event, or more than one event. All three murders are considered pre-meditated, they all happened at the same time, so how can one of the pre-meditate murders be viewed differently?
"Other principles include the “totality principle,” namely, that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh, along with the principle that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
...
The cases where the discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences has been considered have tended to follow the proposition that sentences should generally be served consecutively when they arise from separate and distinct transactions.6
...
As noted above, this is subject to a common law rule that unrelated criminal offences will usually have consecutive sentences applied to them and the statutory rule that, where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be “unduly long or harsh” (section 718.2(c) of the Code).
The amended section also addresses the situation where multiple sentences are being imposed at the same time. In such a case, under section 718.3(4)(b), a court must consider directing that these sentences be served consecutively when the offences do not arise from the same event or series of events, when one of the offences was committed while the accused was on judicial interim release (also called “bail”, or when one of the offences was committed while the accused was fleeing from a peace officer.18"
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Par.../bills_ls.asp?ls=c26&Parl=41&Ses=2&Language=E
I just want to sneak out of work and run down to the courthouse for 1:30! I'm close! I could make it if I run!
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
The problem is she's trying to argue something that defense already conceded. I'm not saying it's her fault but she obviously wasn't well enough informed and she ended up looking like an idiot. I mean the judge sent her out of the courtroom so they could get their $hit together.
Which is why I felt Dangerous Offender status would be appropriate. This would be classed as a "Crime Spree" and thus the above is applicable. It is, however, at the discretion of the judge and the Justin Bourque precedent is an example. His was a "Crime Spree" seen as one event but he got 3 consecutive life sentences. (Incidentally he pleaded guilty to three murders). On October 31, 2014 he was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for 75 years. It was considered the harshest sentence in Canada since its last executions in 1962.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...r-justin-bourque-to-appeal-life-sentence.html
Okay, if they're still there when I'm done at 4 I'll take a nice walk in the sun.[emoji5] where are they normally then?Run Princess run! I snuck by yesterday afternoon and took pics of the media taking pics - they were still there at 4:30 (and likely beyond).
As the crown said "he killed them for different reasons". Consecutive.
consecutive or concurrent? Spellbound
Okay, if they're still there when I'm done at 4 I'll take a nice walk in the sun.[emoji5] where are they normally then?
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk