Effectiveness Of Precedent In Canadian Criminal Law
Effectiveness of Precedent in Canadian Criminal Law
Precedent, also known as stare decisis, is the principle where courts follow previously decided cases to ensure consistency, predictability, and fairness in law. In Canada, precedent is highly effective, particularly in criminal law, because:
Hierarchy of courts: Decisions of higher courts bind lower courts (vertical stare decisis). For example, Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions bind all lower courts.
Consistency: Precedent ensures similar cases are treated similarly.
Predictability: Lawyers and citizens can reasonably anticipate legal outcomes.
Judicial economy: Courts save time by relying on established principles.
However, precedent is not absolute; courts can distinguish cases or, in rare circumstances, overrule precedent.
Key Cases Illustrating Precedent in Canadian Criminal Law
1. R v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3
Facts: Robert Latimer was convicted of second-degree murder for killing his severely disabled daughter to end her suffering.
Legal Issue: Whether the courts could consider "mercy killing" as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but allowed consideration of mitigating circumstances in sentencing.
Importance: Demonstrates how precedent guides sentencing but courts retain discretion. Lower courts must follow the principle that second-degree murder carries mandatory minimum sentences, but they can look at circumstances when imposing penalties.
2. R v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
Facts: Dr. Henry Morgentaler challenged the criminalization of abortion in Canada.
Legal Issue: Whether the abortion law violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Holding: The law was struck down as unconstitutional.
Importance: Supreme Court rulings set binding precedent for lower courts. This case changed criminal law nationwide regarding abortion, showing that precedent can effectively enforce constitutional principles.
3. R v. Daviault, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63
Facts: Daviault committed sexual assault while intoxicated.
Legal Issue: Can extreme intoxication be a defense to general intent crimes?
Holding: SCC held that extreme intoxication could, in rare cases, negate criminal intent.
Importance: Set a precedent that lower courts had to follow when considering intoxication as a defense. Later, Parliament passed legislation to modify this, showing how precedent can influence legislation as well.
4. R v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688
Facts: Gladue, an Indigenous woman, was sentenced for manslaughter.
Legal Issue: How should sentencing principles under the Criminal Code apply to Indigenous offenders?
Holding: SCC required courts to consider background and systemic factors affecting Indigenous offenders when sentencing.
Importance: This case established the Gladue principle, now binding on all Canadian courts for sentencing Indigenous offenders. This is a clear example of precedent creating effective, ongoing change in criminal law practice.
5. R v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326
Facts: Stinchcombe involved the Crown’s disclosure of evidence.
Legal Issue: What is the Crown’s duty to disclose evidence to the defense?
Holding: SCC ruled the Crown has a constitutional duty to disclose all relevant evidence.
Importance: This case created binding precedent on disclosure obligations, significantly shaping criminal procedure across Canada.
6. R v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
Facts: Oakes challenged the possession of drugs under the Narcotic Control Act.
Legal Issue: Whether the reverse onus provision violated the Charter of Rights.
Holding: SCC established the Oakes test to determine if a law limiting rights is justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Importance: This case is one of the most cited precedents in Canadian criminal law and constitutional law. It illustrates how precedent guides courts in interpreting rights and limits of criminal law.
Effectiveness Analysis
Binding Authority: SCC decisions (like Latimer, Oakes, Gladue) bind lower courts, ensuring uniform application.
Flexibility: Courts can distinguish cases when facts materially differ, maintaining fairness.
Law Development: Cases like Morgentaler and Daviault show precedent can evolve criminal law in response to social values.
Limitations: Precedent is less effective if lower courts misinterpret binding decisions or if social context changes drastically.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Legal Principle | Precedent Effect |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Latimer | Sentencing discretion in murder | Guided lower court sentencing |
| R v. Morgentaler | Abortion law & Charter | Changed national criminal law |
| R v. Daviault | Extreme intoxication defense | Informed lower courts on defenses |
| R v. Gladue | Indigenous sentencing | Established mandatory consideration of systemic factors |
| R v. Stinchcombe | Crown’s disclosure | Binding procedural precedent |
| R v. Oakes | Limiting rights test | Fundamental constitutional test applied nationwide |
RELATED Blog
comments