- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
From another thread:
To answer many of your questions and misconceptions:
National Parole Board; Policy Manual, Volume 1 no. 15 2009-10
14. Clemency and Pardons
14.1 Pardons
Legislative reference
Criminal Records Act . subsections 4.1(1) and (2), 4.2(4), 7 and 7.2.
Preamble
The Criminal Records Act (CRA) authorizes the National Parole Board to grant or refuse to grant pardons to persons convicted of offences under federal acts and regulations and to revoke a pardon or, under specific circumstances, declare that a pardon ceases to have effect. The CRA also requires that, on application and verification of eligibility, a pardon be issued to applicants whose criminal records contain only summary convictions and/or hybrid offences that were tried summarily.
A pardon is evidence that the conviction should no longer reflect negatively on a person’s character. In support of this statement, the CRA restricts access to records under federal jurisdiction and removes any disqualifications that would result from a conviction. With regards to employment, the CRA specifies that information about pardoned offences shall not be sought in the employment applications of organizations under federal jurisdiction. In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Act forbids federal agencies and departments to discriminate against an individual based on a pardoned record.
Purpose
To guide Board members in pardon decision-making.
Policy
Good conduct
For the purpose of the CRA, good conduct is defined as behaviour that is consistent with and demonstrates a law-abiding lifestyle.
Guidelines for assessing good conduct
For the purpose of determining good conduct in decision-making, the Board will consider all relevant and reliable information provided by the applicant and criminal justice entities including:
•information about an incident that resulted in a charge that was subsequently withdrawn, stayed, or dismissed, or that resulted in a peace bond, in the use of alternative measures or in the acquittal of the applicant;
The relevance of this information increases where the charge or charges are of a serious nature, and/or are related to convictions on the record for which the pardon is requested. With regards to a peace bond or the use of alternative measures (ex. community service work), adherence to the conditions, the date on which the conditions were imposed and the date of the originating incident should also be taken into account;
•any record of absolute or conditional discharges;
•information about convictions under provincial statutes.
The importance of this information depends on the nature, the number and the date of the infraction, and/or whether or not it is similar to the past criminal activity of the individual;
•information provided by law enforcement agencies about suspected or alleged criminal behaviour;
•representations provided by, or on behalf of, the applicant;
•any information submitted to the Board by others with knowledge of the case.
The Board does not consider anonymous information unless there is more than one complaint which is relevant to the Board’s decision-making. Relevance is determined by the nature of the complaints, the number of the complaints and/or the timing of the complaints.
•with respect to applicants convicted of a sex offence prosecuted by way of indictment, any information received from law enforcement agencies further to enquiries made by the Board.
Revocation of a pardon based on subsequent conviction for an offence punishable on summary conviction
When determining whether to revoke a pardon on the grounds that the individual to whom the pardon was granted or issued is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction under a federal act or its regulations, the Board will consider all relevant information, including:
•information that suggests a significant disregard for public safety and order and/or laws and regulations (see Guidelines for assessing good conduct), given the offender’s criminal history;
•whether the offence is consistent with the offence for which the pardon had been issued or granted;
•the time period since satisfaction of all sentences.
Voting requirements
Decisions will be made by one Board member, unless the applicant has been convicted of a sex offence prosecuted by way of indictment, in which case two Board members will make the decision. Board members who propose to either deny a pardon, to revoke a pardon, or to cease a pardon, will set out in writing the reasons for the proposal.
If representations are received, the final decision as to whether or not to refuse to grant a pardon, to revoke a pardon, or to cease a pardon, will be made by different Board members.
If, after receiving representations, the decision is to grant a pardon, to deny a pardon, to revoke a pardon or to cease a pardon, the Board members will set out in writing the reasons for the decision.
In all cases requiring two votes, both members must be in agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, the case will be referred to two Board members who did not participate in the initial review.
Cases where there may be representations by or on behalf of the applicant
If the Board proposes either to refuse to grant a pardon, to revoke a pardon or to cease a pardon, the review will not proceed for at least 60 days following notification to the applicant, unless representations are received at an earlier date.
If the Board authorizes that representations may be made orally, the representations may be heard by way of an in-person hearing in the national office of the Board or in one of the Board’s regional offices.
Guidelines for determining whether to hold a hearing
The Board may conduct a review by way of a hearing, if the Vice-Chairperson, Appeal Division, believes it is desirable to do so based on an assessment of any relevant factor, including:
•where there is information that suggests that the applicant has had involvement with the police since the last conviction; or
•where it is necessary to clarify information provided by the applicant.
Cross References
Pardons application procedure document
NPB Policy Manual:
9.2 Hearings (section on video-conferencing)
14.3 Hearing Guidelines for Clemency and Pardons
Implementation Date
2009-01-29
Bruce Monkhouse said:I don't want to change the topic but I just want to give an example of what Tess is saying......
Hockey coach in sex abuse case pardoned
Parole board's action in Graham James case comes amid new allegation of abuse
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/790202--hockey-coach-in-sex-abuse-case-pardoned?bn=1
Now in the last 21 years I have seen lots of garbage far worse than this clown walk away from their sentence simply because they spun a good enough yarn in front of 3 folks who are nothing but political hackbags.......
They didn't seem to make the news, nor did the Prime Minister want an explanation. :
To answer many of your questions and misconceptions:
National Parole Board; Policy Manual, Volume 1 no. 15 2009-10
14. Clemency and Pardons
14.1 Pardons
Legislative reference
Criminal Records Act . subsections 4.1(1) and (2), 4.2(4), 7 and 7.2.
Preamble
The Criminal Records Act (CRA) authorizes the National Parole Board to grant or refuse to grant pardons to persons convicted of offences under federal acts and regulations and to revoke a pardon or, under specific circumstances, declare that a pardon ceases to have effect. The CRA also requires that, on application and verification of eligibility, a pardon be issued to applicants whose criminal records contain only summary convictions and/or hybrid offences that were tried summarily.
A pardon is evidence that the conviction should no longer reflect negatively on a person’s character. In support of this statement, the CRA restricts access to records under federal jurisdiction and removes any disqualifications that would result from a conviction. With regards to employment, the CRA specifies that information about pardoned offences shall not be sought in the employment applications of organizations under federal jurisdiction. In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Act forbids federal agencies and departments to discriminate against an individual based on a pardoned record.
Purpose
To guide Board members in pardon decision-making.
Policy
Good conduct
For the purpose of the CRA, good conduct is defined as behaviour that is consistent with and demonstrates a law-abiding lifestyle.
Guidelines for assessing good conduct
For the purpose of determining good conduct in decision-making, the Board will consider all relevant and reliable information provided by the applicant and criminal justice entities including:
•information about an incident that resulted in a charge that was subsequently withdrawn, stayed, or dismissed, or that resulted in a peace bond, in the use of alternative measures or in the acquittal of the applicant;
The relevance of this information increases where the charge or charges are of a serious nature, and/or are related to convictions on the record for which the pardon is requested. With regards to a peace bond or the use of alternative measures (ex. community service work), adherence to the conditions, the date on which the conditions were imposed and the date of the originating incident should also be taken into account;
•any record of absolute or conditional discharges;
•information about convictions under provincial statutes.
The importance of this information depends on the nature, the number and the date of the infraction, and/or whether or not it is similar to the past criminal activity of the individual;
•information provided by law enforcement agencies about suspected or alleged criminal behaviour;
•representations provided by, or on behalf of, the applicant;
•any information submitted to the Board by others with knowledge of the case.
The Board does not consider anonymous information unless there is more than one complaint which is relevant to the Board’s decision-making. Relevance is determined by the nature of the complaints, the number of the complaints and/or the timing of the complaints.
•with respect to applicants convicted of a sex offence prosecuted by way of indictment, any information received from law enforcement agencies further to enquiries made by the Board.
Revocation of a pardon based on subsequent conviction for an offence punishable on summary conviction
When determining whether to revoke a pardon on the grounds that the individual to whom the pardon was granted or issued is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction under a federal act or its regulations, the Board will consider all relevant information, including:
•information that suggests a significant disregard for public safety and order and/or laws and regulations (see Guidelines for assessing good conduct), given the offender’s criminal history;
•whether the offence is consistent with the offence for which the pardon had been issued or granted;
•the time period since satisfaction of all sentences.
Voting requirements
Decisions will be made by one Board member, unless the applicant has been convicted of a sex offence prosecuted by way of indictment, in which case two Board members will make the decision. Board members who propose to either deny a pardon, to revoke a pardon, or to cease a pardon, will set out in writing the reasons for the proposal.
If representations are received, the final decision as to whether or not to refuse to grant a pardon, to revoke a pardon, or to cease a pardon, will be made by different Board members.
If, after receiving representations, the decision is to grant a pardon, to deny a pardon, to revoke a pardon or to cease a pardon, the Board members will set out in writing the reasons for the decision.
In all cases requiring two votes, both members must be in agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, the case will be referred to two Board members who did not participate in the initial review.
Cases where there may be representations by or on behalf of the applicant
If the Board proposes either to refuse to grant a pardon, to revoke a pardon or to cease a pardon, the review will not proceed for at least 60 days following notification to the applicant, unless representations are received at an earlier date.
If the Board authorizes that representations may be made orally, the representations may be heard by way of an in-person hearing in the national office of the Board or in one of the Board’s regional offices.
Guidelines for determining whether to hold a hearing
The Board may conduct a review by way of a hearing, if the Vice-Chairperson, Appeal Division, believes it is desirable to do so based on an assessment of any relevant factor, including:
•where there is information that suggests that the applicant has had involvement with the police since the last conviction; or
•where it is necessary to clarify information provided by the applicant.
Cross References
Pardons application procedure document
NPB Policy Manual:
9.2 Hearings (section on video-conferencing)
14.3 Hearing Guidelines for Clemency and Pardons
Implementation Date
2009-01-29
