TRU Law faculty member Micah Rankin appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada last month to argue an important case that will help determine how much a sentencing judge can vary from a plea bargain.
A plea bargain is formally known as a joint sentencing submission—terms agreed to by both parties and submitted to a judge.
Rankin, an appellate (appeals) expert, argued that sentencing judges should closely follow plea bargains, and that clarity is needed to bring consistency on the matter to courts across the country.
He was joined by his co-counsel Jeremy Jensen. The case also had several interveners including the BC Civil Liberties Association.
“Currently, judges in BC and the western provinces have the ability to reject a sentence if they feel it is unfit, while judges in the east may only interfere if the joint submission is contrary to the public interest. We argued that the public interest standard should apply across Canada,” explained Rankin.
The current Supreme Court case arises from a 2013 manslaughter conviction in BC, in which a judge increased a sentence agreed upon by both the Defence and the Crown. The sentencing judge believed a tougher sentence should be imposed. The BC Court of Appeal sided with the trial judge.
Rankin, who has been conducting research on sentencing, heard about the case and became interested.
“I was interviewed by Lawyer’s Weekly about the appeal court’s decision. I decided it was worth seeking leave to the Supreme Court of Canada to resolve an outstanding issue in the case law,” he said.
In order for a case to be heard at Supreme Court, it must first be deemed of national interest or have implications nationally. This is Rankin’s sixth appearance at Supreme Court since he joined TRU Law in 2011 as a founding member of the faculty.
Rankin and Jensen argued that the important legal issue in the case involved the integrity of the plea-bargaining process—the pair state that plea bargains are less likely to be achieved if individuals fear the sentencing judge will reject them.
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision, meaning it will convey its decision at a later date—likely sometime later this year.
