The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which removed the provision of the Criminal Code that allows cumulative sentences for multiple murders, affects several cases here in Alberta, including the cases against Derek Saretzky and Edward Downey.
In recent years, three high-profile cases in southern Alberta have seen offenders receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole for 50 to 75 years.
In two of the cases, those of Derek Saretzky and Edward Downey, appeals were suspended pending the announcement on Friday.
In 2016, Edward Downey murdered Sara Baillie and her five -year -old daughter, Taliyah Marsman. He was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 50 years.
Derek Saretzky was convicted of first-degree murder in 2015 after the deaths of Terry Blanchette, his two-year-old daughter Hailey, and his neighbor Hanne Meketech.
It’s called must be granted
Derek Saretzky’s lawyer hopes the Supreme Court decision will allow his client and other inmates to have their sentences reversed and impose a 25-year period of ineligibility on parole.
Balfour Der believes the decision of the highest court in the land is important. [La décision] builds on the core Canadian values that separate our justice system from many around the world, including]the ability to rehabilitate offendershe said.
At age 22 when he was arrested, if Derek Saretzky’s appeal was successful, he could seek release at age 47, instead of 97, as is the current case.
However, defense attorney Kelsey Star, who specializes in appeals, is keen to point out that parole does not equal full parole and a life sentence means that an offender will be imprisoned or subject to conditions for for the rest of his life.
” Life is life. Also, just because you can ask for a parole doesn’t mean you can get one. “
Inactive cases?
Douglas Garland killed five -year -old Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents Alvin and Kathy Liknes in Calgary in 2014.
He was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 75 years. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the verdict.
Since the case is no longer active in the system, like others like Travis Baumgartner or even, it is less clear whether the Supreme Court ruling will apply.
Their chances are very low, because unless the case is in the system, they will have a hard time getting a remedy.said Alias Sanders, one of Alberta’s largest appeals attorneys.
At the time they were sentenced, the law was not declared unconstitutionalhe added.
Purpose vs. change
Alias Sanders recalled that once an appeal is heard and dismissed, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to reopen it.
He also referred to an Alberta Court of Appeal decision known as the Canto case, in which the court ruled that an appeal judgment could not be challenged after a Supreme Court decision that would result in a related change in law.
Our Court of Appeal has ruled that the principle of finality prevails in a change in lawhe pointed out, and mentioned that it is possible to request a ministerial review by the Minister of Justice for those who feel they have been victims of a breach of justice, but this process is likely reserved for those who say they are wrong. convicted.
He believes it will be difficult for the Minister of Justice to make some form of payment for a convicted murderer.
This is an unconstitutional law, but is it an abortion of justice? I do not knowhe pointed out.
With information from Meghan Grant
Source: Radio-Canada
