Another mandatory minimum flunks the Charter of Rights

A Nunavut judge has thrown out another mandatory minimum sentence for a firearms offence, this time a mandatory three-year sentence for firearm trafficking. (FILE PHOTO)

A 30-year-old Rankin Inlet man with six children should not serve a three-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for firearm trafficking, Justice Earl Johnson ruled recently in a written judgment.

That’s because the mandatory minimum sentence for the offence—when applied to the man’s circumstances—is unconstitutional, because it’s grossly disproportionate and breaches the Charter of Rights prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Johnson said.

“I am satisfied that the three-year MMP [mandatory minimum penalty] that I am required to impose in this case is so disproportionate as to outrage the standards of decency of Nunavummiut,” Johnson said.

The Nunavut Court of Justice is the third court in Canada to make such a ruling, following earlier decisions by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Ontario Court of Justice.

Earlier this year, Sigurdson Irkootee of Rankin Inlet pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a firearm, an offence he committed between June 1 and June 29, 2016.

He admitted that while drinking on the land outside Rankin Inlet, he broke into a cabin owned by Noah Makayak and stole a Savage 25-06 rifle.

“It was an impulsive, irrational decision, from a mind that was addled by alcohol, which the applicant regretted the next day,” Johnson said.

After he sobered up, Irkotee wanted to get the rifle out of his house because of the potential danger to his children, Johnson said.

So he sold it to Kashtin Simik, who did not have a firearms licence. Eventually, the firearm was recovered and was never used to committee a crime.

Irkotee’s lawyer, Alison Crowe, argued that a sentence of three years in prison for the offence is grossly disproportionate, and instead proposed a one-year conditional sentence.

Crown lawyer Philippe Plourde argued that while a three-year term in a penitentiary is “a very serious sentence,” it is not grossly disproportionate.

The Crown also said that Parliament intended to create a penalty that denounces and deters trafficking in firearms and responds to growing public concern over firearms violence.

“Even if the applicant’s buyer was an honest citizen with no ill intent, this firearm could have ended up in the hands of someone who would have used it for unlawful purposes,” Johnson said in his characterization of the Crown’s position.

But Johnson rejected the Crown’s position, saying Irkotee’s crime was “the impulsive act of an intoxicated person” and that he showed poor judgment in not telling the police about the stolen rifle.

“However, to his credit he entered an early guilty plea, was very cooperative with the police, no harm was caused by the firearm and the firearm was recovered quickly,” Johnson said.

After looking at relevant case law, and the options available to him after declaring that the three-year mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional, Johnson sentenced Irkotee to six months in jail.

He said the longest period of incarceration that Irkotee has served in the past was only 10 days long, so a three-year sentence would have an enormous impact on him.

“Mr. Irkootee has six young children and he will be away in the south for a long time. Because of the high cost of transportation in the North, his family will likely only be able to visit him a few times, if at all,” Johnson said.

After imposing the six-month sentence, Johnson banned Irkotee from possessing firearms for life, but recommended an exemption for harvesting food.

The rifle is forfeited to the Crown and Irkotee must pay a $200 victim of crime surcharge.

R. v. Irkootee 2018 Nunavut... by on Scribd