Senator Larry Campbell’s Weblog

The article posted below was published in the Edmonton Sun on October 11th concerning the amendments made to Bill C-25 by the Legal and Consitutional Affaris Senate Committee. I hope this provides some more insight into the issues surrounding pre-trial credit.

Pre-trial credit has validity

Andrew Hanon

October 11^th, 2009

The Edmonton Sun

 

 Amid all the clamour and cries of foul in Ottawa this week over some Liberal senators’ mini-rebellion against party leader Michael Ignatieff, one very important point was overlooked.

 

They were right. The fracas erupted over the Tory government’s so-called truth in sentencing act, which would do away with the two-for-one credit that is frequently handed to convicts who’ve spent long stretches in jail waiting for their trials.

 

Under the current practice, for example, a criminal who languished in pre-trial custody for 18 months would get 36 months taken off his prison time after getting convicted.

 

For years, critics of the two-for-one system have accused defence lawyers of deliberately dragging out the process in order to get lighter sentences for their clients.

 

The Harper government’s proposed Bill C-25 would outlaw those decisions, which are made at a judge’s discretion. The new rules would make it one-for-one in most cases and 1.5-for-one in special circumstances. What those special circumstances might be is not spelled out in the bill.

 

The bill passed a Commons vote with the support of Opposition leader Ignatieff.

 

But last week the Liberal-dominated Senate justice committee amended the bill, changing the one-for-one restriction to 1.5-for-one.

 

Tory Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was outraged, accusing the Liberal senators of “gutting” a law that was designed to unclog Canada’s glacially-paced court system.

 

But let’s take a step back from all the rhetoric and theatrical outrage and look at the facts.

 

Pre-trial custody is known as “dead time.” That means there’s no rehabilitation programming at all — no training, no educational programs, hardly any counseling services, and certainly no recreation.

 

Prisoners often spend more than 20 hours a day sitting in their cells, waiting for their day in court.

 

Pre-trial centres like the Edmonton Remand are notorious for their overcrowding and volatile atmosphere. They’re considered harsher than full-on prisons.

 

All this, in a country where the accused is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

 

That’s why judges are willing to give convicts two-for-one.

 

No doubt some defence lawyers drag out trials, getting delays and continuances in order to get lighter sentences for their clients.

 

But let’s be realistic: most judges see through such transparent attempts at manipulation and yank lawyers’ leashes when they’re being unreasonable. Besides, two-for-one is discretionary — not every convict gets time taken off their final sentence.

 

It’s also important to note that two-for-one time doesn’t count toward parole eligibility, which means that in many cases, it doesn’t shorten the prisoner’s time behind bars.

 

For politicians to suggest that outlawing two-for-one will solve the bottleneck in our courts is just as cynical as the lawyers they claim to be thwarting.