Back-to-back sentences for sexual offences

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to require consecutive jail sentences for sexual offences. If a person is sentenced for two or more sexual offences, the judge must order each sentence to run one after the other, not at the same time (Bill s. 1 replacing Criminal Code s. 718.3(7)). The bill does not create new crimes; it changes how sentences are served.

• Requires judges to impose consecutive prison terms for each sexual offence sentenced at the same time (Bill s. 1).
• Also requires a new sentence for a sexual offence to be consecutive to any existing sexual-offence sentence the person is already serving (Bill s. 1).
• Applies on Royal Assent unless another date is set; no other date is set here (Interpretation Act s. 5(2)).
• Does not change sentence lengths for single offences; it changes how multiple sexual-offence sentences combine.
• The Criminal Code “totality” rule still applies: combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh (Criminal Code s. 718.2(c)).

What it means for you#

• Households and victims

  • Courts must recognize each sexual offence with a separate, back-to-back sentence. This can lead to longer time in custody for offenders with multiple sexual convictions (Bill s. 1).
  • Symbolic recognition: each offence’s harm is reflected with its own consecutive term, as noted in the preamble.

• People charged or convicted of multiple sexual offences

  • If convicted of 2+ sexual offences, your total time in prison will generally be longer because sentences cannot run at the same time (Bill s. 1).
  • Parole timelines move with the total sentence length. For fixed-term sentences, full parole eligibility is generally at 1/3 of the total sentence and statutory release at 2/3, unless otherwise set by law (Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) s. 120, s. 127).
  • Judges still set the length for each offence within legal limits and must ensure the total is not “unduly long or harsh” (Criminal Code s. 718.2(c)). Some sexual offences also have mandatory minimums; those still apply where they exist (Criminal Code, various sections).

• Defense counsel and prosecutors

  • Fewer options to propose concurrent sentences in plea talks for multiple sexual counts; any plea must account for mandatory consecutive structure (Bill s. 1).
  • Possible shift in litigation strategy. Some accused may be less willing to plead if concurrency is off the table. Impact size is uncertain. Data unavailable.

• Courts and corrections

  • Judges lose discretion to order concurrent time for multiple sexual offences; they retain discretion on individual sentence lengths and must apply totality (Criminal Code s. 718.2(c); Bill s. 1).
  • Longer combined sentences for multi-count sexual cases may increase average time in custody. This can raise demand for federal prisons because sentences of 2 years or more are served federally (CCRA).
  • Administrative impact on parole boards and probation services may grow with longer aggregate sentences. Data unavailable.

• Scope and timing

  • “Sexual offence” is not defined in this bill; application will follow Criminal Code sexual offences and existing case law (Bill s. 1).
  • Applies to sentences pronounced after it takes effect. The Charter protects against a harsher punishment than the one in force when the offence was committed (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 11(i)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No official fiscal estimate was published with the bill. Data unavailable.
• Likely cost drivers:
  • Longer aggregate incarceration for people with multiple sexual convictions could increase correctional operating costs (Bill s. 1). Data unavailable.
  • Potential increase in trials and court time if guilty pleas decline. Data unavailable.
  • No new revenues or fines are created by the bill.

Proponents' View#

• Ensures each victim’s harm is reflected in sentencing, rather than having multiple sexual offences effectively “collapse” into one concurrent term (Preamble; Bill s. 1).
• Promotes public safety and deterrence by increasing accountability for repeated sexual offending (Preamble).
• Creates more consistent sentencing across courts by removing discretion to run sexual-offence sentences at the same time (Bill s. 1).
• Still respects proportionality because judges set sentence lengths within ranges and must apply the totality rule to avoid unduly harsh totals (Criminal Code s. 718.2(c)).
• Applies when sentences are imposed at the same time and when an offender is already serving a sexual-offence sentence, closing perceived gaps in current practice (Bill s. 1).

Opponents' View#

• One-size-fits-all consecutive rules reduce judicial discretion to tailor sentences to the facts, including offender history and rehabilitation prospects (Bill s. 1).
• Combined terms may become very long in multi-count cases, raising concerns under the totality principle and potential Charter challenges for gross disproportionality (Criminal Code s. 718.2(c); Charter s. 12).
• Could reduce guilty pleas if concurrency is unavailable, increasing trials, delays, and court backlogs. Magnitude is uncertain (assumption flagged; Data unavailable).
• May increase prison populations and costs without clear evidence of added deterrence; no fiscal estimate or impact analysis is provided (Data unavailable).
• “Sexual offence” is not defined in the bill text, which may invite litigation over scope and produce uneven application until appellate guidance develops (Bill s. 1).