Legislated sentence for serial killer reignites concurrent vs. consecutive debate By: Chris Kitching Posted: 6:30 PM CDT Thursday, Aug. 29, 2024 Last Modified: 2:46 PM CDT Friday, Aug. 30, 2024 Updates

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/08/2024 (701 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The automatic sentence handed to serial killer Jeremy Skibicki has sparked a debate about whether judges should again be allowed to give consecutive life terms to people convicted of multiple first-degree murders.

Skibicki received concurrent life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years for the racially-motivated killings of four Indigenous women in Winnipeg — the same period of parole ineligibility that is given to an adult convicted of one first-degree murder.

From the year 2047, it will be up to a National Parole Board panel to decide whether Skibicki, 37, should be freed from prison.

“The fear families have to live with — even with a 25-year sentencing — remains,” said Cambria Harris, whose mother, Morgan Harris, was one of the four victims. “There’s always those questions that get left unanswered. There is no definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ within this system, and so the possibility of him maybe getting out will frighten his survivors and our families for years to come.

“The possibility of him maybe getting out will frighten his survivors and our families for years to come.”–Cambria Harris

“As heard in court, the justice system has far too long been focused on the well-being of the offender, while not taking into account the well-being of the victims, survivors and families that will forever be affected.”

After Wednesday’s sentencing, relatives of the victims said federal law should be changed so that killers such as Skibicki have no chance of walking out of prison.

“He should never ever be allowed to apply for parole,” Donna Bartlett, Marcedes Myran’s grandmother, said outside court Wednesday. “He was a monster.”

Skibicki was convicted July 11 for killing Rebecca Contois, 24, Myran, 26, Harris, 39, and an unidentified woman eventually given the name Mashkode Bizhiki’kwe, or Buffalo Woman.

Cambria Harris and Cathy Merrick, grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said the case demonstrated a need for justice reform.

“In terms of the sentence and what was reflected, he should have got 100 years.”–Grand Chief Cathy Merrick

“The change needs to reflect on the crimes that are committed by the person,” said Merrick. “In terms of the sentence and what was reflected, he should have got 100 years.”

While addressing Skibicki in court, Court of King’s Bench Justice Glenn Joyal noted he was bound by law and could only impose a sentence that will “not adequately reflect the gravity of these offences and your moral culpability.”

In 2011, Stephen Harper’s federal Conservative government amended the Criminal Code to give judges the discretion to stack periods of parole ineligibility in blocks of 25 years, essentially creating sentences of life without parole, when sentencing people for multiple first-degree murders.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down the provision in 2022, ruling it unconstitutional in the case of Alexandre Bissonnette, who killed six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017 and successfully appealed a parole eligibility period of 40 years.

The court said such sentences are “incompatible with human dignity” and amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

“Where was the human dignity in how these women were killed and disposed of?” said Merrick. “(Skibicki) created a grave site in a landfill. He showed no remorse.”

The federal Liberal government said it disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022, but respected it.

“The attorney general of Canada strongly defended and supported a sentencing judge’s ability to impose a longer period of parole ineligibility,” Anna Lisa Lowenstein, a spokeswoman for current federal Justice Minister Virani, said in a statement Thursday.

Eligibility for parole does not mean an offender will receive parole, she said.

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to reinstate the sentencing provision if he becomes prime minister. The party criticized the Liberals for not reinstating the law.

“From my perspective, the ball is in Parliament’s court now.”–Brandon Trask

“As in the case of the Quebec mosque shooter, it is inconceivable that any government would allow for a serial killer to be eligible for parole in his early 60s — just 25 years after first seeing the inside of a jail cell — after killing four vulnerable Indigenous women,” Conservative justice and B.C. MP critic Frank Caputo said in a statement.

The Liberals accused Poilievre of undermining the Supreme Court and treating the Constitution with disdain.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew on Thursday praised Joyal and told reporters he discussed the Supreme Court decision with some of the families the previous day.

He wouldn’t say if he would advocate for a reinstatement of the sentencing law.

“I don’t think that I can say much, given the fact I need to respect the judicial branch,” said Kinew.

The premier said Skibicki should never be released from prison.

“We spoke to family members (Wednesday), and they said we need to remember this, when this person applies for parole in the future, this needs to be reminded of people entertaining those hearings,” said Kinew. “I don’t think there’s too many Manitobans who are going to argue with me when I say this person can never be free again.”

Interim Progressive Conservative leader Wayne Ewasko — whose party campaigned last year on its decision not to search a Winnipeg-area landfill where Harris and Myran’s remains are believed to be buried — said Skibicki’s sentencing and concerns about consecutive life sentences deserve a review “to ensure every judicial sanction that can be imposed is.”

PC MLA Kelvin Goertzen, a former provincial justice minister, urged the federal Liberals or a future Conservative government to use the “legislative means,” including the notwithstanding clause, to allow courts to impose consecutive life sentences.

Brandon Trask, assistant professor of law at the University of Manitoba, expects members of Parliament to consider the matter in the wake of Skibicki’s sentencing.

“From my perspective, the ball is in Parliament’s court now,” he said.

Any future decisions are not retroactive, Trask noted.

While the “better practice” would be to redraft the provision that was found to be problematic in the Supreme Court decision, any use of the notwithstanding clause must be done so with restraint or sparingly, he said.

— with files from Dean Pritchard

chris.kitching@freepress.mb.ca

Chris Kitching
Reporter

Chris Kitching is a general assignment reporter at the Free Press. He began his newspaper career in 2001, with stops in Winnipeg, Toronto and London, England, along the way. After returning to Winnipeg, he joined the Free Press in 2021, and now covers a little bit of everything for the newspaper. Read more about Chris.

Every piece of reporting Chris produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press‘s tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.