Applying Gladue Principles to Corbett Applications in R v King: A New Safeguard for Indigenous Accused Persons?
Defence counsel may prepare what is known as a Corbett application which prohibits the extent or use of the accused’s “record of conviction in cross-examination” to limit attacks against their credibility. While in the past some safeguards have been developed and used to prevent the misuse of a criminal record as evidence of guilt against the accused during cross-examination, the recent 2022 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in R v King adds an additional layer o
Scepticism For Gladue In Twenty-First Century Manitoba Media
Many Canadians know — or at least think they know — about the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)’s 1999 decision in R v Gladue. Recently, for example, when I told a man at my gym that I plan to article in criminal law, he told me to make sure I knew about Gladue because, in his words, “it’s a case that says when an Indigenous person commits a crime, we take the sentence that you would give a white person for the same crime and cut it in half.”
When Gladue Reports Fail - Donna Malcolm
On June 9, 2021, the Manitoba Court of Appeal heard the appeal of Marlon Elijah Whincup. The issue before the court was one of mathematics. Whincup had been serving an imprisonment of 30 months for an incident in which he stole an ambulance in a methamphetamine-induced psychosis. The sentencing judge made an error resulting in a 30 month sentence instead of the intended 24. The Court confirmed that the sentencing judge had correctly considered Gladue factors.
R v CEB: Balancing Gladue Factors in Sentencing for Cases of Child Sexual Abuse - Kerith Tung
In this blog entry, I will describe the recent case of R v CEB. I will also discuss why I believe that Gladue factors were correctly balanced against the harsher sentencing standards typically applied to cases dealing with child sexual abuse.
When Enough is Enough?
In R v Dumas, 2020 MBCA 28, a 48-year-old attempted to appeal indeterminate sentences imposed onto him for 2 separate sexual assaults. One being the sexual assault of a 30-year-old man, and the other being the sexual assault with a weapon on a 15-year-old girl. As all citizens do, the accused indeed has a right to a fair trial, and in this case, he argues that a 20-year determinate sentence followed by a 10-year supervision order should have been ordered.
