On what grounds are people speculating that the minimum term of 15 will be reduced to 10? I've read that there needs to be extenuating or exceptional grounds.
It's known as the Masipa protocol
On what grounds are people speculating that the minimum term of 15 will be reduced to 10? I've read that there needs to be extenuating or exceptional grounds.
If he gets 10 years, which I think is highly likely (assuming he doesn't somehow manage to dodge the SCA ruling) how much time do you think he will actually serve? I am guessing half the tariff minus the year he has already served. So around 4 years is my guess.
It's known as the Masipa protocol
My understanding is that it's a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a first offender (less time served) and that there have to be substantial or compelling circumstances for the sentence to be reduced. I haven't found the rule relating to parole, but I don't understand how a mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced by years according to this. There was an amendment to the Act so a bit of research is called for.
My feeling was, if he appeared before Masipa, that she'd sentence him to 15 less 1 for time served. That's a far cry from 4, but then we were all shocked to learn he was only required to serve 10 months of a 5 year sentence for CH.
Until I find out more, I believe he'll serve 10 years inside, but it looks like I'm an outsider here.
snipped
ETA In view of the comments by the judges of the SCA, I can't see how Roux can use OP's disability at all. In fact, I have no idea what he can use in mitigation in the next round of sentencing.
It would be interesting to see any other cases where the minimum has been reduced.
Got you
So it is the pessimistic view - not the one which would apply to anybody else.
If I were the judge I would view 15 as the minimum
I think the shocking nature of the execution is worth 20 by international standards
My understanding is that it's a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a first offender (less time served) and that there have to be substantial or compelling circumstances for the sentence to be reduced. I haven't found the rule relating to parole, but I don't understand how a mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced by years according to this. There was an amendment to the Act so a bit of research is called for.
My feeling was, if he appeared before Masipa, that she'd sentence him to 15 less 1 for time served. That's a far cry from 4, but then we were all shocked to learn he was only required to serve 10 months of a 5 year sentence for CH.
Until I find out more, I believe he'll serve 10 years inside, but it looks like I'm an outsider here.
ETA In view of the comments by the judges of the SCA, I can't see how Roux can use OP's disability at all. In fact, I have no idea what he can use in mitigation in the next round of sentencing.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Absolute minimum.
They haven't accepted that he honestly believed he was in a life threatening situation, so it was just barbaric.
No wonder Roux was concerned about getting the judges to consider why he had shot 4 devastating bullets - he can't mitigate it.
And without a confession, or acceptance of any responsibility, it is a remorseless crime too.
Those of you who are on this thread at present know that I'm a card carrying member of the DD club. No matter what sentence he receives from Masipa, for me it will always be shockingly inappropriate.
.....and what about the suspended sentence mentioned above by IB, how does that figure in SA....is it possible considering that Masipa may well be sentencing him again that she may of taken an extreme dislike to all the bad attention she was given due to her previous sentence and decide to give him a light sentence by reducing it partially or even totally with a suspended sentence......
Try Googling anything similar to "How many convicted murderers are allowed bail" and it's hard to find any results apart from OP. I just read a case of a guy in Canada (also a convicted murderer) and also awaiting an appeal who had his application for bail turned down. From the search results alone, it seems that granting bail to convicted murderers is very very rare.
Court of Appeal Justice J.C. Marc Richard delivered the decision not to grant bail on Wednesday afternoon in Fredericton, in front of a packed courtroom.
Bail has never been granted to a convicted murderer in New Brunswick.
Richard said Oland met the first two conditions required under the Criminal Code to be considered for release: his appeal is not "frivolous" and he's not considered a flight risk.
The third condition whether Oland's detention is required in the public's interest was the most difficult, he said.
Although Richard was satisfied Oland wouldn't be a danger to the public, he said releasing him would send the wrong message to the public.
Of course it would. A convicted murderer belongs in jail, not swanning around enjoying freedom for months and months on end. I doubt Roux is going to be able to convince anyone that OP is a 'special' case, considering the murderer survived a year in jail already, wasn't starved, wasn't abused, and even managed to make some pals.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-bail-murder-appeal-1.3450016