{"id":11364,"date":"2019-04-19T17:24:08","date_gmt":"2019-04-19T21:24:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/?p=11364"},"modified":"2019-11-17T16:46:06","modified_gmt":"2019-11-17T21:46:06","slug":"la-cour-ecarte-le-critere-de-la-justesse-dune-peine-lorsquun-juge-doit-determiner-sil-accepte-la-proposition-des-parties","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/la-cour-ecarte-le-critere-de-la-justesse-dune-peine-lorsquun-juge-doit-determiner-sil-accepte-la-proposition-des-parties\/","title":{"rendered":"La Cour \u00e9carte le crit\u00e8re de la \u00ab justesse \u00bb d\u2019une peine lorsqu\u2019un juge doit d\u00e9terminer s\u2019il accepte la proposition des parties : R. c. Binet, 2019 QCCA 669\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

R. c. Binet, 2019 QCCA 669\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Les suggestions communes ont une tr\u00e8s grande importance dans le syst\u00e8me de justice p\u00e9nale et les juges ne peuvent les refuser que si elles sont contraires \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat public<\/h2>\n

[16] \u00c0 la lumi\u00e8re de ces principes, la Cour est d\u2019avis que le juge a commis une erreur r\u00e9visable en rejetant la suggestion conjointe. Il ne s\u2019est pas interrog\u00e9 \u00e0 savoir si la peine sugg\u00e9r\u00e9e \u00e9tait susceptible de d\u00e9consid\u00e9rer la justice ou encore si elle \u00e9tait contraire \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat public. Il modifie la peine propos\u00e9e afin de permettre \u00e0 l\u2019intim\u00e9 d\u2019aller aupr\u00e8s de sa m\u00e8re. Pour en arriver \u00e0 cette conclusion, il se demande si la peine sugg\u00e9r\u00e9e par les parties, soit 28 mois de prison, atteindrait davantage les objectifs et principes de d\u00e9termination de la peine qu\u2019une peine \u00e9quivalente \u00e0 25 mois et 25 jours. Il reproche aux parties de ne pas revoir leur suggestion en raison de la situation factuelle diff\u00e9rente de celle pr\u00e9valant au moment des n\u00e9gociations en juin 2018.<\/p>\n

[17] C\u2019est donc pour imposer une peine plus appropri\u00e9e \u00e0 la situation particuli\u00e8re de l\u2019intim\u00e9 que le juge n\u2019accepte pas la suggestion commune des parties. Or, la Cour supr\u00eame \u00e9carte le crit\u00e8re de la \u00ab justesse \u00bb d\u2019une peine lorsqu\u2019un juge doit d\u00e9terminer s\u2019il accepte la proposition des parties[4].<\/p>\n

[18] Le juge ne pouvait pas \u00e9carter la suggestion commune comme alternative au rejet de la requ\u00eate en vertu de l\u2019article 523(2)a) C.cr. Les suggestions communes ont une tr\u00e8s grande importance dans le syst\u00e8me de justice p\u00e9nale et les juges ne peuvent les refuser que si elles sont contraires \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat public, ce qui n\u2019\u00e9tait pas le cas en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce.<\/p>\n

[19] La Cour d\u2019appel d\u2019Alberta, dans une affaire r\u00e9cente, indique bien la distinction entre les principes devant guider un juge pour accepter ou refuser une suggestion commune et ceux applicables \u00e0 la d\u00e9termination d\u2019une peine. Elle s\u2019exprime ainsi :<\/p>\n

\n

[17] After a review of the case law, the sentencing judge summed up the test as follows:<\/p>\n

51 The principles to be drawn from these cases suggest that a joint submission will bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest when it does not adequately reflect the general principles of sentencing identified in the Criminal Code and where the benefits of accepting the joint submission do not outweigh these concerns. (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n

This, however, is not the test for accepting a joint submission set in Anthony-Cook. It echoes the \u201cfitness\u201d or \u201cdemonstrable unfitness\u201d tests that were specifically rejected in that case.<\/p>\n

[18] While the sentence that might have resulted after trial is relevant, it is an unhelpful approach to start the analysis by reverse engineering the joint submission. In other words, it is inappropriate to first determine what sentence would have been imposed after a trial, and then compare it to the joint submission. This inevitably invites a conclusion that the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute merely or primarily because it departs from the conventional sentence. Rather, the analysis should start with the basis for the joint submission, including the important benefits to the administration of justice, to see if there is something apart from the length of the sentence that engages the broader public interest or the repute of the administration of justice.[5]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[20] La Cour partage ce point de vue. Le juge a commis une erreur de principe en refusant la suggestion commune des parties. Sous le couvert de l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat public, il a plut\u00f4t impos\u00e9 une peine qu\u2019il trouvait plus appropri\u00e9e dans les circonstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

R. c. Binet, 2019 QCCA 669\u00a0 Les suggestions communes ont une tr\u00e8s grande importance dans le syst\u00e8me de justice p\u00e9nale et les juges ne peuvent les refuser que si elles sont contraires \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat public [16] \u00c0 la lumi\u00e8re de ces principes, la Cour est d\u2019avis que le juge a commis une erreur r\u00e9visable en […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[64],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11364"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11364\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11364"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=11364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}