Case information

Charter of Rights — Courts — Jurisdiction — Judicial restraint — Criminal law — Sentencing — Constitutional validity of mandatory minimum sentences — Accused sentenced to terms longer than mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment provided for in Criminal Code — Superior Court refraining from ruling on challenge to constitutional validity of those mandatory minimum sentences — Court of Appeal declaring that Superior Court had to answer constitutional question — Whether rules applicable to exercise, by Superior Court, of its power of control and supervision over validity of legislation permit it to refuse to rule on constitutional question by applying principle of judicial restraint.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The respondent, Darrell Griffith, was convicted by a jury of offences under s. 244.2(1)(b) and (3)(a) and s. 95(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (“Cr. C.”), namely discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another person and possession of such a firearm without holding an authorization or a registration certificate as required by law. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Griffith challenged the constitutional validity of the minimum sentences of four years’ imprisonment set out in s. 244.2(3)(b) of the Cr. C. and of five years’ imprisonment set out in s. 244.2(3)(a)(i) of the Cr. C. on the ground that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Superior Court judge sentenced the respondent to 81 months’ imprisonment and to 60 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently, and refrained from ruling on the constitutional questions raised. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the sentence; declared that the Superior Court judge had to answer the constitutional question regarding the minimum sentence; dismissed the constitutional challenge because the record was incomplete; and dismissed the sentence appeal.