Striking Down The Mandatory Minimum, R. v. Sharma

In Canada, mandatory minimum sentences are imposed on individuals convicted of certain criminal offences. This connotes that sentences imposed on individuals convicted of criminal offences, which carry mandatory minimum sentences, cannot be lesser than the corresponding mandatory minimum sentence for that particular criminal offence. 

Superior Court Justice, Casey Hill, of Brampton made a landmark judgement by striking down the mandatory minimum sentence mandated for the criminal offence of importation of a controlled substance, which is contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Justice Hill determined that imposing a two-year sentence would be a violation of the accused's section 12 Charter Rights, as it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Case Overview: Cheyenne Sharma's Sentencing

The accused in this case was Cheyenne Sharma, a 23-year-old single Indigenous mother living below the poverty line. Sharma, who didn't have any prior criminal record, pleaded guilty to the importation of a controlled substance, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The offence Sharma pleaded guilty to carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years.

Justice Hill's ruling shed light on the need for the Federal Government to fulfil its promise to repeal mandatory minimum sentences. Two years prior, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended to the Federal Government that the mandatory minimum sentencing laws be repealed as a method to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. This recommendation was supported by a commitment from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take the necessary actions to repeal mandatory minimum sentencing.

In this case, Sharma’s defence lawyer argued that the mandatory minimum sentence constituted a violation of her section 12 Charter rights, as it was cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Hill ruled in favour of the defence, finding it to be “a grossly disproportionate punishment.” In his ruling, Justice Hill acknowledged the “systemic cultural genocide of our country’s First Nations peoples” and the direct impact of colonialism on their disproportionate involvement in the criminal justice system. Justice Hill asserted that “Cheyenne Sharma is very much the face of many Aboriginal offenders whose background has played a real role in their presence before the criminal courts in this country.” 

Rather than imposing the mandatory minimum two-year sentence, Justice Hill sentenced Sharma to a 17-month custodial sentence, thereby striking down the mandatory minimum sentence requirement.

Many people have expressed their critical views of mandatory minimum sentences, arguing that they reduce the discretion of judicial sentencing by strictly limiting the range of sentences that a judge can impose. Although mandatory minimums are typically implemented as a strategy to deter crime, research has consistently demonstrated that mandatory minimums are, in fact, not effective in deterring crime. 

The Minister of Justice has communicated that they remain committed to introducing reforms to address the negative impacts that mandatory minimum penalties have had on our criminal justice system. The Minister of Justice has further stated that they remain dedicated to taking steps to reform the criminal justice system to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous accused. The Minister believes that sentencing reforms that repeal mandatory minimum sentencing will contribute to addressing this overrepresentation. 

For anyone who has been charged with a criminal offence, Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers are available for a free consultation.