Given the number of shootings in the Greater Toronto Area this summer, Mayor Tory is seeking to ban hand guns in Toronto. Although it seems like a good ideal there are many reasons why it will not work. One is enforcement, how would a ban be monitored, random police checks? two, often these crimes are committed by stolen or illegally trafficked hand guns, so again how would we stop these guns from being stolen? Three, a city can not enact criminal law, that is only for the federal government. All three levels of government are looking for solutions, many will involve more judges and more police. This is not the only way to stop gun crimes but it is the easiest for politicians.We need to look at long term solutions, such as alleviating poverty, and gang growth, putting more money to social services and opportunities n communities. We need long term thinking for these serious issues.

You may be suprised to know that even if someone has not been criminally charged or had their criminal charges withdrawn, the information is on your police record, here in Canada.

This information is then revealed you apply for a criminal records check for a new job or volunteer placement or are trying to cross the border, into the United States.

A Toronto resident is suing the Toronto Police for the harm caused by their inaccurate police records, that affected her obtaining a job and getting custody of her niece.

Let’s hope that Canadian Police Boards review their policies and make sure that accurate information is retained and revealed.

The article link is here:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/0/police_behaviour_in_womans_background_check_malicious_lawsuit_alleges.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09/30/attorney_generals_office_using_collection_agencies_to_collect_victim_surcharge_fines_from_criminals.html

The Court of Appeal has recently decided that the search of an unlocked cell phone can be allowed as an incident to an arrest. Given the amount of information most people carry in the phones – phone numbers, photos, pictures, games, passwords, favourite web site, emails and texts. This is information that they want to keep private, if it was a physical item, it could be a journal, calendar, or file cabinet. There is a privacy right in the the journal, file cabinet that is closed, why not a cell phone? Gone are the days when we just used our cell phones to make telephone calls. This ruling does seem difficult to understand given this case and this cell phone. Perhaps the Supreme Court can clarify the privacy rights one should have in their property.

Recent events have shown that self -defence arguments are not easy to define. The Florida George Zimmerman case will be debated for years to come -on the issues of self defence laws, gun control, and race issues.

Here in Canada, a store owner thought that the only way he could protect his property was to tie up a repeated thief. He was later acquitted of charges of Assault, and Forcible Confinement.

A restaurant owner is facing scrutiny for his actions in defending his property. As the case winds its way through court hopefully he will be acquitted if he was truly defending his property

Revisions are planned to the Criminal Code self defence provisions for 3 reasons.

1. The sections s 34-37 are very confusing for counsel, judges and juries
2. The power of citizens to arrest someone is restricted to arresting only those actually committing the crime or committing the crime in relation to the citizen’s property
3. The reality that police officers sometimes can not attend during the commission of the crime.

The Bill proposes the use of reasonable force – which would depend on factors such as: the nature of the force used, whether there were other options, and the history of the relationship between the parties.

As for property, those in “peaceable possession” of a property would be allowed to take reasonable action — including the use of force — “to prevent their property from being taken, damaged or trespassed upon”.

The use of deadly force, however, would only be permitted in the most exceptional circumstances, such as protecting someone from death or grievous bodily harm.

The link to the Bill is at the end of the post.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/25/was-restaurateur-who-threw-spice-in-mans-face-defending-his-property-or-assaulting-an-innocent/

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=c26&Parl=41&Ses=1&source=library_prb

A recent event has shown the general public the factors a judge takes into account, in sentencing a criminal offender. Mr. Beech, who had been sentenced by His Honour Mr. Justice Atwood, in Brampton Court of Justice, returned to the court to thank the judge.

First of all, it is very rare that anyone is happy with a sentence that is received, often the accused thinks it is too harsh, while the victims and public think it is too lenient.

When the Mr. Justice Atwood was sentencing Mr. Beech, on gun and drug charges, he took into account the proposed sentences by both the Crown and Defence Counsel, and sentenced Mr. Beech to 90 days jail on weekends – an intermittent sentence. Mr. Justice Atwood took into account the positive steps that Mr. Beech had taken between the crime and sentencing, and the fact that he was a single support parent. Seven years later, Mr. Beech returned to court to thank the judge and to tell the judge the sentence made a great difference in his life. He turned his life around and became a productive member of society.

Of course there are very few offences that have a mandatory minimum: murder, gun offences, impaired driving, that reflects society’s abhorrence. The majority of the offences, the judge looks at the crime, how it was committed, the impact on the victim, mitigating and aggravating factors, such as a previous record, age, challenges (drug, alcohol addiction) The judge also looks at the individual, why this offence was committed, what has changed since the offence -eg drug treatment, school, counselling etc. All of these factors are used to create an appropriate sentence.

The public believes that more mandatory sentences might be a good thing. A major principle in sentencing is rehabilitation – creating a better person for the community. By not taking into account the personal factors of the offender, and the offence, rehabilitative steps may not be conducted prior to sentencing. It will not allow leniency in cases where it is truly needed such as in Mr. Beech’s case. Mr. Beech’s sentence provided both punishment and an opportunity for rehabilitation that he used to better himself and his family, and return to court as a productive member of society.

The full story can be accessed by the web link below.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1117892–convicted-man-returns-to-thank-the-judge

Regina v. S. G. Aggravated Assault, Suspended Sentence and Probation

Regina v. P.S. Assault with Weapon, Diversion

Regina v. K.W. Domestic Assault, Withdrawn

Regina v. R.A. Domestic Assault with Weapon, Acquittal

Regina v. M. J. (Youth) Robbery with Weapon, Probation

Regina v. C.S. Attempt Break and Enter, Conditional Discharge

Regina v. S.W. Fraud Under, Possession of Credit Card Data (21 charges), Conditional Discharge

Regina v. T.T. Possession of Firearms, Peace Bond

Regina v. N.A. Careless Driving, Drive Under Suspension (HTA), Withdrawn

Regina v. M. B. Break and Enter x2, Theft Under, Fail To Appear, Conditional Discharge

Regina v. T.T. Possession of Prohibited Firearm in a Car – Withdrawn

Regina v. H.O. Robbery – plea to Theft Under