Examples from Western Australia provide dramatic illustration of the enormity of this new power: “A number of defendants have alleged to their lawyers that they were told by police that they knew the defendant had committed a number of offences, and if he or she did not provide them with full admissions, they would simply charge them one by one, resulting in them receiving multiple cumulative sentences of increasing increments” (Goldflam and Hunyor, 1999 at 213). Other anecdotes refer to practices of delaying the laying of charges and of the specific order in which charges are laid, which also affect the application of mandatory minimum sentences.

8. Creating Tolerance for Mandatory Prison Sentences

Finally, CAEFS believes that tolerance of the mandatory minimum for murder paves the way in terms of acceptability of minimum sentences for other offences. The new mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment for offences involving a firearm provides an example, as do numerous Private Member’s Bills that propose new minimum sentences for offences and offenders that have been the subject of media-induced panic.

The new mandatory minimum sentence was introduced for offences involving weapons with little public debate or justification, as it was buried in the gun control legislation. It was intended to appease gun owners by punishing severely the “real criminals”- those who use guns in the course of committing other crimes (Doob, 1999). These minimum sentences, just like the mandatory minimum for murder, are essentially politically expedient solutions to grave social problems that have moral as well as legal implications.

B. Abandon the Parole Ineligibility Rules for Murder

CAEFS asserts that, in the absence of a mandatory life sentence for murder, there would be no justification for retaining the current, extremely lengthy, periods of parole ineligibility for murder. The offence should be governed by the same parole principles applied to all other offences pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Furthermore, because murder as an offence generates so much potential for “law and order” hysteria and unleashes biases and prejudices, specific safeguards must be inserted into the parole process so as to guarantee basic Charter rights to those imprisoned for the offence of murder. Specifically, the period of parole ineligibility should only be extended beyond the statutory formula set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act upon a clear standard of proof, as recommended by a jury to a judge, and with written reasons justifying the decision. The basis for appeal of such legal decisions must include alleged violation of Charter rights. In addition, parole decisions made by the Parole Board must be subject to automatic judicial review based on alleged Charter violations.