July 2, 2015


Special air quality statement in effect

Local

Prosecutors appeal ruling rejecting mandatory minimums

 

Manitoba Justice is appealing controversial sentencing decisions which saw mandatory minimum prison terms junked by separate Court of Queen's Bench judges who each found they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Prosecutors are asking Manitoba's Court of Appeal to re-sentence Bryce McMillan, 23, and Mario Adamo, 40. Both men learned in recent weeks they would not be subjected to years-long prison terms in their individual cases.

In McMillan's case, Justice John Menzies elected to toss out the four-year jail stint he faced which was mandated by law for recklessly firing a rifle at a Carberry-area home in September 2011.

Court heard McMillan lashed out after being repeatedly bullied by people in the community. Nobody was injured in the shooting, but there were people inside the home at the time.

Instead, Menzies sentenced McMillan to one year behind bars and two years of supervised probation, saying the unique circumstances of the case presented a situation where the mandatory minimum was unfit.

The Crown claims Menzies' decision amounts to a major error in law and should be overturned by Manitoba's highest court.

Justice officials make virtually the same argument in appeal documents filed in Adamo's case — which were placed before the appeals court on the same day as McMillan's.

Adamo, who suffers with major cognitive challenges after being beaten by Hells Angels members in 2000, was handed six months of time served and probation by Justice Colleen Suche on a weapons-related charge which, in law, is supposed to net a mandatory three year prison term.

Suche ruled the law was unfit given Adamo's significant mental challenges, and declared it "of no force and effect."

"I conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence... has a much greater impact on mentally disabled persons because it does not take into account their reduced moral blameworthiness," Suche wrote in her September ruling. As well, limitations in the prison system make it unable to deal with Adamo's needs, she ruled.

In each appeal — which will likely be heard at separate, as-yet-undetermined times in the coming months — the Crown claims each judge made an error in concluding there were no "demonstrably justified" exceptions to violations of Adamo and McMillan's fundamental rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers for McMillan and Adamo have yet to file responses to the appeals. Both signalled after sentencing concluded they were aware the decisions would likely be headed to a higher court, and possibly all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

james.turner@freepress.mb.ca

History

Updated on Thursday, October 24, 2013 at 12:34 PM CDT: Corrects typo in headline.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective January 2015.

Scroll down to load more

Top