SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
522
MAJESTY THE KING
HIS
APPELLANT
AND
GORDON ROBINSON or ROBERT-
SON
RESPONDENT
MAJESTY THE KING
HIS
APPELLANT
AND
HUGH LOGAN MeKENNA
RESPONDENT
MAJESTY THE KING
HIS
APPELLANT
AND
GEORGE CUTHBERT
RESPONDENT
MAJESTY THE KING
HIS
APPELLANT
AND
GERALD ADAM BEATTY
RESPONDENT
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH
COLUMBIA
lawHabitual
Criminal
to
tive
The
least
at
of
words
least
in
criminalStatuteInterpretation-Words liable
575C
Criminal CodeWhether indica
of the
maximum
been
five
years
or
minimum
convicted
of
which
imprisonment
PRESENT
Locke
the
an
offence
imprisonment
Code describe
an offence
by the law is imprisonment
for
penalty
law
for
Rinfret
Carwright and
for
which
for
prescribes
at
least
for
five
five
the
which
was
he
of
575C
in section
maximum
liable
to
at
the Criminal
penalty
permitted
more and not an offence
minimum
of
mandatory
sentence
years
or
years
C.J and
Kerwin Taschereau
Fauteux
JJ
Rand
Kellock
Estey
SUPREME
S.C.R
APPEALS
for British
from the
of
judgment
Columbia
523
Court
the
of
quashing the conviction
respondents on the charge
the
OF CANADA
COURT
of being
Appeal
of each of
THE KING
criminal
SON
habitual
etal
Maclean
for the
and
Hurley
The
K.C
Reid
of
judgment
appellant
the
Chief
The
FAUTEUX
four
stantially alike in all of the
cases
leading
was
some
at
indicted
separately
Kerwin
of
by
delivered
Each
of the respondents
two counts
on
sub
are
appeals
separate
time in 1950 in the
definite
and
Justice
and the course of proceedings
nature
to these
eventually
respondents
JJ was
Estey and Fauteux
Taschereau
the
for
Fauteux
one
that
being
of
province
British
Columbia he was found in unlawful possession of drugs
under the Opium and Narcotic
Drug Act .1929 as amended
and the second one charging him to be
haibitual criminal
within
the
of the
meaning
relevant
to
the
to
second
the
were
found
lodged
by
the
cases
judgment
of
provisions
the
on
leave
unanimously
the
province
directed
Identical
the
of
authority
to appeal to
verdict
in
all
interpretation
575c
section
point and under the
Criminal Code
to
and
thereon
rests
As
jury
subsequently
was
of
Appeal
conviction
entered
the
appeal
conviction
of
by
pleaded not guilty but
An
jury
latter
the
be
to
the
not
is
appealwas
present
or found
accused
Court
the
quashed
acquittal
by
the
against
which
the
count
the
accused
the
guilty
maintained
this
by
of the
countwhich
first
raised in
point
either admitted
The
XA
of Part
provisions
Criminal Code of Canada
Part
the
of
the
XA
of section
of
of
On
1025 of the
Court was granted
this
appellant
was
by counsel of all interested parties that
made in the appeal of His Majesty the King
Gordon Robinson
or Robertsonthe
first
called
being
It
agreed
the argument
hearingwould apply in
The opposing contentions
for
to
be
considered
relevant
part
person
judge
or
jury
the
not
case
WW.R
838603t
be
575c
found
may be
1265
the other eases
of the
may more
of section
shall
as
all
to
finds
parties
clearly
is
be
be
which
stated
are
now
once
the
quoted
habitual
criminal
unless
on evidence
1950
W.W.R
1285
the
SUPREME COURT
524
19M
that
since
INO
the indictment
he
1oeINsoN
et
was
such
at
of
the
attaining
times previously
three
been
liable
to
convicted
at
Part and
this
eighteen
least
five
that
leading
is
at
least
in
charged
offence
which
for
imprisonment whether
any
after
the
commencement
years
was before
he
has
the crime
of
indictable
an
he
years
the conviction
to
conviction
previous
of
age
CANADA
OF
or
criminal
persistently
life
or
Fauteux
The submission
Court of Appeal
the
meaning
the
above
of
outis
be pointed
number
in
provision
made
mission
be found
on the
of
convicted
since
In
is
dealt
mail with intent to
In
the
the
as
convicted
liable
offence
not
is
category
one
with
it
offence
of
years
exposed
Criminal Code
off
ences
for
as
related
maximum
five
years
the
Criminal Code
449Stopping
at least
the
are
the
offender
sentence
punishment
he was
contextand
indicative
not
of
of
offender
or
and
is
which
years imprison
There
hundred
of
maximum number
punishment
as
for
the
the
the
he has
as five
the
to
in
part
questioned
offence
much
which
some one
which
minimum
the
unless
an indictable
imprisonment
suffer
indictment
than
the
been
may
view the words
much as and the
manifestly
to
to
immediately be
in section
Thus it is said that in
detached
therefromthese words
of
eighteen
previously
less
in
ment
minimum
found
is
rb
to suffer
or exposed
it
of
age
which
for
should read
provision
been
unless
times
sub
the
person shall
the
appellants
mean
context
three
enacted
this
only
is
criminal
of the
part
with
read
crime charged in the
mandatory punishment
noted there
The offence
relevant
attaining
than
less
of an indictable
imprisonment
the
would
habitual
that
the
by Parlia
used
consistent
strictly
provision
to be
years he has not
the
words
the
thanit may
less
phrase
Paraphrasing
the
evidence
conviction
qualifying
manner
in
Not
in
appearing
minimum mandatory sentences which
in relation to
are few
not
the
solely on
In both instances
than
less
the
implement
to
purporting
interpretation
mean not
are said to
ment
at leasttwice
words
the
in
prevailed
on an argument centered
provisionand
rule of literal
which
of respondent
rests
liable
of
at
in
are
eighty
to
liable
is
receive
least
the
indictable
five
as
years
imprisonment
The
visions
will
of
of Part
Parliament
XA
is
well
manifested
and the words
the
pro
at least when
read
by
SUPREME COURT
S.C.R
in the
context
defeat
the
are in
primary
my
view
respectful
well
as
OF CANADA
as
incidental
525
quite
to
inapt
of
purposes
this
191
THE KING
Part
RoBINsoN
XA
Part
1947 by
new
is
section
18
35
English
Act
assented
Edward
VII
Ch
Act
make
to
and
that
for
and
criminals
to
purpose
and
offenders
young
Where
that
and
the
of
it
he
or
is
is
opinion
that
he
and
such
and
the person
be
of
on
whom
Part
undergoing
of
may
the
detention
of that
view
yearswith
should
preventive
it
is
life
period
detention
deemed
be
be
for
that
and mode
In brief
It
is
if
left
to
history
in every
whether
determining
must
to preventive
condition
at least
to persons
of life
be subjected
be placed out on license and
treatment
directed
period
in
to be
purpose
regulations
the
persons
confined
reformative
persononce
to
shall
if
of
sentence
as
for
and
habits
reiew
to
further
pass
indeterminate
may
an indeterminate
for
mode
and
575gthat
prison
public
criminal
the court
an
are clearly
of the
of Justice
circumstances
the
of criminal
reason
the protection
Minister
by
of Part
provisions
who by
for
be prescribed
habitual
passed
section
detention
disciplinary
be
after
admits
offender
criminal
prison set apart
such
to
subjected
to
is
habitual
providedby
preventive
prison or part
referred
sentence
be
committed
the
may
by
575b
offender
for
of
habitual
thereto
criminal habits
prison
of crime
of
offence
to
said
of the public
in
such
to
judge
the
his
hereinafter
is
this
It is equally
as
detained
detention
the purpose
of
the protection
for
expedient
ordering
indictable
.8
An
is
best indicated
is
subsequently
upon
by reason
that
and
jury or
by
sentence
passes
an
of
Part
this
found
is
the court
of
the
reformation
words of section
convicted
is
person
commencement
the
the
detention
XA
of Part
Act
being
prevention
for
prolonged
underlined
following
1908
of which
purposes incidental
The primary purpose
the
21
title
the
for
provide
the
other
for
unabridged
provision
in
to Part II of
be traced
on December
to
59
better
Enacted
Criminal Code Amendment
may
provisions
the
Criminal Code
our
of the
chapter
its
in
the
so on what
the
and
three
person
conditions
575h
What
the
Legislature
criminal
habits
detention
for
the
provisions
ment
and
the
mode
protection
of secton
expressed
considers
in
the
of
as being
life
of the
575c
tantamount
justifying
to
preventive
public is indicated in
minimum require
where
form of several
conditions
is
estab
et
al
Fauteuxj
SUPREME COURT
526
1951
TUE KING
ROBINSON
etal
Three
lished
the
of
evidence
with as
of
convicted
the
to
at
least
The
of offences
end
precisely
which
names
the
cause
only the
is
are
repeated
indicated
therein
20 of the Prevention
ways only one
The offences
various
by
or
an offender
XA
reference
measure
of
to
which the authorized
come
within
the
Again in such category there are in
Code some one hundred and eighty crimes while
only
mum
described
mandatory
ment
hundred
purview
reason
If
the
and
of
sentence
Part
receive
prescribed
appellants
eighty
as general
is
submission
indictable
XA
449
in section
which
which
for
five
is
off ences
for
five
Criminal
there
the
is
mini
years imprison
these
right
are
may then
an application
the
Part
of
purview
the
crime
or
punishment
maximum punishment which
to suffer
And only those crimes
maximum punishment is at least
imprisonment
the
sections
the
by
exposed
is
may
It
by
com
not the repeated
is
used in Part
but by
them
describing
within
10 comes
under the Prevention
whicth
achieved
is
not identified by
years
con
the
been con
indictment
is under section
1871
that
it
criminal
offences
indication
to
offender
.section
is
to
previously
Of section
ss
to
habitual
Crimes Act
more
times
crime as precised
of all kinds
While such
are
Act
English
of sixteen
age
under both Acts
be found
method
liable
is
1871
commission of such
of
offender
that
charged in the
according
Thus and
to
in the
three
least
definition of
mission
the
crime
of
Crimes Act
of
been
but an indictable
offence
prescribes
the
crime
hich
the
con
the
the indictment
in
which
of
section
attaining
he has at
victed
to
previously
years imprisonment
in substance
of the
years
offence
commission
five
Since
viction
times
charged
corresponding
10 which
three
least
crime
for the
be branded
of eighteen
age
is not anyindictable
that
offence
the
an indictable
of
can
person
attaining
he has at
viction
must be found on
and dealt
which
conditions
criminal are that
habitual
Since
Fauteuxj
the
before
CANADA
OF
as
within
and
the
for
one
the
that
generality
SUPREME COURT
S.C.R
of
the
the
aibove
quoted
XA
and
provisions
is
in the
inapplicable
If on
offence
one indictable
defined
of these one hundred
case
and
offences
indictable
eighty
should
it
suggest
527
the submission of the respondents is accepted
contrary
Part
OF CANADA
applicable
only
the
to
449
in section
XA
28 of the
of section
other
the
sole
uncommon
search
Can
It
or
manifested
on
of
intractability
by
the
above
of
ground
alleged
language
for which he was
true
time
first
pression
by
adopted
to at
liable
one of the
says
least
five
may
may be
But
more
of
at which
minimum
that
the
the
apparent
dominant
the
from
maximum
ever that
may be
line
first
for which
there
if
this
its
apparent
years
or
one cannot
fix
minimum
fixes
the
the
one cannot disagree
minimum and
the
same type
the
im
operation
five
automatically
of reasoning
of sentence
the
How
does not solve the question
reasoning
submission
the
phrase
for which
imprisonment is related
above indicated and means
to at least five years
kind of sentence
the
authorized
years while
discretionary
in the
sentence
that
the
is
the
word liable and
the
ordinary
language
and
that
is
view it
means for whih
years
word in the
at least five
controlling
sentence
respondents
second kind of sentence
mandatory
no
is
starts
view beth
to the
appellants
liaible
five
this
my respectful
reveals
thinking
maximum
are reiaited
for in the
this
of
subsection
intractability of
simply excludes
it
kind
this
the
With
in
provided
the
of
effect
check on
maximum
he was
the
not be at once
members
learned
one reads
which do not merit imprisonment for
offences
to the
to rob
phrase of subsection
following
575c
quite
is
language
least
the
the
Court of Appeal that when
for the
to
now
the
imprisonment
years
point
are created
with
mail with intent
the
be defeated
Parliament in the
the
off ences
exclusively
of Parliament
provisions
of section
dealing
of stopping
intent
ambiguity
indictable
clearly untenable
is
the
quoted
where
of
object
offence
force
extendedby
Actits application to
Interpretation
federal statutes
with
or
Criminal Code have
in the
it
the
as well
meaning
as
under
THE KING
ROBINSON
et
at
Fautx
That Parliament would have in 1947 enacted
all
the
and would further by incor
of Part
provisions
porating
951
It
thu
phrase
refers
the
becomes
is
really
word in
Code must
of this
the
at
SUPREME COURT
528
1951
ThKINo
ROBINSON
et
at
Fauteux
then be ascertained
to
imports
ascribed
to
English
Dictionary
Exposed
Under
Code
practical
Every
of
the
of
liable
is
other
term
shorter
term
who
one
or
years
For
significance
Provided
The opening
no
that
than
he
of which
be
one
minimum
the
to
be
shall
by Parliament
of
prescription
suffer
to
1054 make
it
like
for
or
life
to
term
any
for
imprisonment
any
shorter
any
any
prescribed
for
Every
one who
is
term
if
convicted
is
words of
in
are
folloWing
sentenced
section
this
to similar words used
are clearly in reference
liable
Oxford
reads
for
sentenced
various
word liable
section
this
the
The
likely
section
to the
imprisonment
may
term
imprisonment
offence
to
or
of
provisions
in
the
234
to
subject
Parliament has given
that
clear
the
liable
VI
or
Of
issue
the
word
vol
indicated
the
decide
the
CANADA
OF
the
followed
generally
pattern
as illustrated in the
punishment
in
the
following
section
one
Every
years
with
is
intent
who
commit
to
of
guilty
imprisonment
indictable
an
and
breaks
indictable
any
off
enters
and
ence
any
liable
of
place
seven
to
public
worship
therein
offence
456
The
words
456
section
1054
liable to
read
necessarily
seven
in the
light
in
liable
575ccan
provisions
And
enactmentsection
to similar words
only be related
general pattern and must thus be presumed
The fact that the
stood in the same sense
What
would entirly defeat
Part
XA
nullify the
indicate
its
as
presumption
object
clear
That
used
in the
to be
under
view
opposite
quoted provisions of
above
the
man
words for which
the
new
the
of section
but not
an authorized
indicate
datory term of imprisonment
he was
the
in
imprisonment
years
of
no
is
to
reason
word liable appears
the
provisionssome ten sections under the Oode
is
of
mandatory term is prescribed
where by exception
in few
no avail
the
as an argument
word liable
related
to
the
in
against
its
maximum
significance
in
In
is
above
sense
263
punithment
conclusion
there
is
It
dealing
for
is
also of
with
murder
for
equally
to which
sentence
attached
is
section
termined mandatory
liable
proper
authorized
minimum mandatory term
that
the
the
the
the
some
prede
word
not used
my respectful
view
cannot rest as alleged
the
on
submission of the respondents
the
rule of literal
construction
SUPREME COURT
S.C.R
As
to the
in the
The
construction
in
matter
be
rule
which
construed
seen
of
beg
in
javorem
vitae
and
times
it
interpreter
to
its
the
section
good make
of the
that
is
its
to
to
or
deems
inconsistency
the
judicial
and
object
Act disposes
force of
by
Criminal Code and
to preveiTt
or punish
to the public
contrary
embrace
provisions
penal
any Canadian
in
cases
recent
honestly
its
promote
the
15
of
in
of
be
sailor
or
majority
duty
still
or to
importance
the Legislature
shall
was
it
soldier
This section
provisions
statutory
there
if
in
when
times
orchard
Interpretation
applies
it
the
paramount
of
premises
and
clear
it
as civil
except
the
in
an
for
and
force
its
statutes
former
when
in
or
meaning and
of anything which
the doing
on
267
other
in
large
Invoked
of
that
15
in the
some
gipsies
words in section
following
well
of
pass
rational
ectends
very
the language
upon
and
plain
discussion
section
1946
applied
cherry-tree
much
lost
recognized
put
In Canada
of all
was
company
has
it
now
is
is
faithfully
the
in
and
penal
down
cut
to
wander without
and
to
be said
Maxwell
in
Edition
rigorously
offences
death
month
for
th
was more
capital
with
punishable
with
deal
doctrine
may
this
statutes
is
that
requires
strictly
number
the
narrow construction
penal
Statutes
529
terms
following
The
of
England
of
Interprstation
the
of the
application
OF CANADA
declaration
or
as
statute
in
of
applicability
The
His
appeal of
Majesty
Court
of
does
however
were
should
Appeal
before
not bring
the
and
should
Deur
be
Columbia
these
cases
the
judgment
This
four
of the
conclusion
an end
to
the
Adopting
and The King
remitted
in
quahed
of
for there
besides the
points
on which the respondents are entitled
an adjudication
The King
the
Court of Appeal other
one discussed herein
to have
be
each
against
respondents should be maintained
to
order
that
Court
the
may
it
course
followed
Boak
of
pass
in
the cases
Appeal
for
upon
these
British
other
grounds Of appeal
The
judgment
delivered
LOCKE
the
words
of
appear
The
Rand
Kellock
contention
at least
section
construed
of
and
JJ
Locke
was
by
as
of
where
575C1
of
they
the
meaning not
following
S.CR
the
435
words
less
the
first
Crown
is
Criminal Code
than
liable
that
while
appear in subsection
Where
to
are
to
be
they again
they are
1925 S.C.R 525
to
be
191
Tnz KING
ROBINSON
etal
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
530
1951
THE KING
ROBINSON
et
al
LockeJ
as
taken as meaning
shown
were
of
to have
criminal
was
condition
of
years
five
the
tention the
in the
used
learned
time
no mention
Since
made
is
Act R.S.C 1927
tion
appealed from or
of
statubory
were
to
be applied
common
be construed
law
of section
construction
Mr
rules
of
am
provision
deemed
which
any thing
prevent
or punish
public
good and
and
construction
of
object
the
intent
This
when
shall
Aot
and
of
meaning and
which
same terms
as
such
the
the
while
that
opinion
enactment
purport
be
to
is
the
for
it
such
receive
best ensure
provision
do not
or
had
result
to
is
the
public
be
shall
the doing
good
or
deems contrary
and
fair large
to
the attainment
of
to
the
liberal
according
to
the
its
origin in section
its
the
affect
was
meaning
Consolidated
the
Act
Canada
39th
1867
Setion
Act
as
passed
each provision
and apply to every Act
in any future
except
in so far as the
iiitent
and
of
in the
passed
provision
the
Act
was
or the
W.W.R
of
con
up
to the
in
1867 provided
thereof
session of the
in
the
the First Session
time
the
Statutes
and has been
tinued
of
expressed
paragraph of section
at
passed
in
with minor
in substantially
in language identical in meaning
object
it
direct
enactment
was reproduced
It
Parliament of
and
the
thereof
to
Canada 1849 which
of
and
the
spirit
Interpretation
section
judge
that
reads
and
will
of
same form in section
Canada 1859 and appeared as
of
but
15
appears to have
Statutes
differences
the
accordingly
interpretation
judgment
either party
any thing which
of
Interpret
by that section
OHalloran refers to the
of the
deems
Parliament
of the
prescribed
immediate
its
the doing
section
10
of
every
whether
remedial
of
Justice
Section
and
15
reasons for the
construction
Act
Every
year
where
as
Court of Appeal
in the
rnay not be affected
statute we must look
that
that
opinion
same manner
in the
factum
in the
rules
of
the
con
this
rejected
of
being
in the
was not argued
it
that
true
more this
with
The
used
first
of
permissible
or
complied
should
expression
second
the
be
all
judges
the
context
for
maximum
has unanimously
Court of Appeal
respondents
times or more
imprisonment
would
section
the
if
three
the
for which
offences
punishment
as Thus
much
been convicted
present
should
session
held
extend
in that
Parliament of Canada
inconsistent
with the
interpretation
1265
which
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S.C.R.J
such provision would give
with
inconsistent
provision
thereof
thereto
Section
declared
any word expression or clause
and except in so far as any
context
the
in any
to
Act
such
of the
that
531
Act R.S.C 1886
Interpretation
and
Act
the
not applicable
declared
is
every
thereof
provision
should extend and apply to every- Act of the Parliament of
Canada then
and
or thereafter
with the
passed
was in this state when
enacted in 1892
Section
of
the legislation
was
first
terms and
in like
in
restrict
its
application
the
any way
dbes
the
exceptions
Act
present
in
not
of
application
like
the Criminal Code
my
section
is
opinion
15
the
to
language here to be construed
Section
ment
15
of
tained
C.B
were
The offence
law Clearly
to our
ents
This
three
the
offences
or
they
National Savings
re
186
Act
said that
sistent with
the
ciar
reason
Bank
In the
at
than
less
so
in
to
by
new
is
it
clear
without
are
Turner
L.J
be con
Court to put
in different
some very
finding
dicta
Board
indication
as
Companies
would
it
years
In
to
same
the
and
Legh
by
Works
of
that
the
words
meaning something
else
used the second time must be
1869 L.R
Ch Div
22
549
five
acquitted
same words
Courtauld
7a
at
was
be
course of the
the
There
where
1584
Co Rep
1863
431
1866 L.R
Ch 547
them were such
clause in the
Metropolitan
matter the
than
here
in defining
punishment
of
least are to be construed
not
there
which
by the respond
Association
upon
for doing
present
criminal
for
he did not consider
in Spencer
.Ch.itty
statute
not available
against
entitled
were
law or with the
by Cleasby
effect
contended
an Act of Parliament
parts
is
habitual
more proven
different contruction
of
ciiminal
language employed
with the construction
dealing
Poflock
matiter has been dealt with
minimum permissible
imprisonment
con
Case
would lead to the result that unless
adopted
if
to
of being
the
Sillem
argument
the
of the construction
capable
restate
statutes
rules of contruction
the
this
offence
respondents since
statute
that
General
said that
of
Barons in Heydon.s
the
not to be applied
new
to the
construction
of
Attorney
509
creates
the
in
be substantially
to
the
for
Reolutions
said
stated
is
rules
in the
While
me
appears to
the
Ex
142
126
148
at
130
1951
THE KING
ROBINSON
at
at
LockeJ
SUPREME COURT
.532
1951
THE KXNO
ROBINSON
found
if
at all in their
and
is
really the
understood in the
my
In
etal
Locke
it
the
provisions
are to be
accordingly
receivc
the object
Act
the
requirement that
The
Criminal Code
the
of the
While
in
the
the
to
sentenced
of
is
section
to
is
35
other
imprisonment
sections
is
defined
by
the
for
the
is
the
449
other
to
imprion
Code
of the
fine
not
also
are
and
minimum per
the
by
expressed
Where however
em
only
of imprisonment which
has
this
Code by
the
penalty
any
been
other
done
saying
leaving
provides
prescribed
of
is
large
in none
used
is
fine
which
for
aid
danger
at
being
imprisonment for any shorter
iiæpose imprisonment
some
of
imprisonment for life or
minimum term
where
words
to
1054
the
or includes
sections
sections
of
an
542 and 1054A
liable
is
is
by way
liable
directed
amending
section
to be expressed
is
the
legiiation
In 14 sections
at leat
punishment
260 other
of
the
the
the
122 364 449 and 510A
punishment
expression
guilty person
liable
to
the
the
years and
than
to
provided
these
the guilty person
less
language
as
against
are
imprisonment or
be imposed
operation
of
five
of
object
the
criminals
In sections
In none
term of
least
575B
of the public
prescribed
is
of
language
habitual
this
that
is
maximum
in at
the
be examined
may
the
term
prscribed
than
may
attainment
interpretation
122 364 377 449 510A
term not
minimum
ploying
of
permissible
the
missible
shall
oonstruc
they are
for the
terms of imprisonment
for
where
lee
whole
permitting
the language
menit
their
by determining
appears from section
more than
it
that
whom
canons
defined in but one
minimum
and
amendments
these
against
the
as
in sections
offences
not mean
ascertained
the protection
for
minimum
is
Act
As
inherent
the
of
persons
construction
designed
as will best ensure
be
to
with
the
sections
that
liberal
does
be
to
is
they
Statutes
fair large and
object
is
In accordance
to
Act
word
determines the matter
that
such
word liable
the
latter
deemed remedial and
of the
employed
statutes
the
not to be clearly manifest from the
is
identity
hich
in
tion and interpretation
of
with
association
sense
context
opinion
OF CANADA
it
that
term
anyone
may
term
to enable
that
to the
the
except
Court
While
any lesser term
Code the maximum term
saying
that
it
shall
be
for
be
in
of
term
SUPREME COURT
S.C.R
not
not more than
or
exceeding
OF CANADA
appears unnecessary in view
of
533
stated
the
this
period
of
provisions
section
1054
whom
to
persons
the
habitual
Criminal Code are applicable
be
contention
with
dealing
intent
the
tor which
offences
minimum term
the
subsection
means
that
of
who
conviction
many other offences described
maximum imprisonment might
575B
where
that
is
to be
judge
the
Court
and mode
if
of
indeterminate
It
it
are
for
ordering
that
criminals
as
sentence
the
me
against
affected
are
to
the
not
to
as
found by
and
jury or
reason
of
he
be
criminal habits
his
the public
of
detained
in
may
for
prison
an
this
class
used
which
the
nay
class
15
will best
of
It
Code
to
575C
convey
the
inconceivable
Code were directed
who would be
the
of criminals
contention
to
to
is
with
be imposed
in subsection
Crown
the
to
the
throughout
leat
sections
section
whom
against
were
the
interpret
ensure
the
We
correct
subection
attainment
of
in
its
meaning and spirit and
manner is in my judgment
to its true intent
according
construe
new
by
respondents
by
manner
object
for
very limited
required
such
indictable
of the Part
and was intended
con.reys
these
the
if
of section
of an
the protection
sentences
liable to at
opinion
that
being
maximum
the
meaning contended
to
more
or
years
The words liable
be protected
to
expression
my
any
for which
period
noted exceptions
the
indicate
by
that
expedient
is
habitual
is
public
in
life
further
pass
the opinion
of
is
is
of
criminal
habitual
it
five
commencement
he is or
admits that
subsequently
be
convicted
is
person
after the
committed
off ence
Code
The language
would comply with the subection
Crown
the
occasions
in the
such
Construing
by
for
more
or
of the
the
with
be prescribed
years imprisonment
on three
three
section
mail
hereafter
maimer contended
in the
on
against
and presumably
may
of
respondents
have
stopping
same
there
five
are
of
the
the
if
of offences
offence
rob or search
to
other
convicted
sections
criminal
those
only
accepted
more been
occasions or
449
language in this
legislate
but to comply
with
the
directions
of
the
statute
would
to
THE KING
ROBINSON
The
the
1951
the
allow
these
appeals
and
Court of Appeal in order that
appeal raised before
that
Court
may
refer
the
each
other
case
back
grounds of
be there dealt
with
etal
Locke
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
534
19M
THE KING
ROBINSON
et
at
CartwightJ
J.The
CARTWRIGHT
raised on this appeal
only question
section
575C of the
proper interpretation
Criminal Code This section is found in Paat XA dealing
to
as
is
of
the
with habitual
1947 by
The
55
so far as
section
was added
which
criminals
Geo VI
11
it
relevant
is
to
Code
the
in
18
section
reads
to this appeal
as follows
575C
that
any such
ment of
been
least
of
five
he
he
indictable
an
at
has
crime
the
of
least
charged
offence
for
imprisonment whether
years
or
leading
is
evidence
years
was before
that
as
the
as to
is
the
after
commence
criminal
persistently
of
an
submits that
which
for
mandatory minimum sentence
The
was
law
the
prescribes
of imprisonment for at least
is
an
they describe
for which
as punithment
penalty permitted by the law
in
an indictable
describe
submits that
appellant
ffence
indictable
he
the
construed
words
these
meaning
natural
puthshment
five years
of
proper construction
offence
for which
years imprisoiment.
five
The respondent
ththr ordinary and
offence
eighteen
ciiminal
habitual
on
finds
conviction
convicted
conviction
convicted
to at least
liable
the
at
Part and
controversy
words
been
previous
this
of
age
be
to
may be
to
to
found
or
life
The
the
liable
was
be
case
previously
indictment
he
which
the
as
attaining
times
the
in
or jury
since
three
not
shall
person
unless the judge
maximum
the
imprisonment
for
five
years
more
or
The
of the
solution
Parliament as disclosed
to
me
to be to
habitual
to be
criminal
of
have been convicted
The
by
offenoes
reference
inflicted
penalty
suffering
going
able
on
to
which
to
the
is
be sentenced
subject
the
to
which
the
on conviction
of which
maximum
to five years
and not
found
three
times
in such
class
are
described
is
to
to
be
say
the
he runs the
possibility of
which he must suffer
and
offences
law permits
that
of
seems
section
least
comprised
thereof
exposed
and
intention
person being
class is composed
the
is
not the penalty
permissible
offence
convicted
person
he
an
The
he shall at
penalty whidh
which he
cvhich
offence
is the
of
of
conditions
that
to
of indictable
class
meaning
Their ordinary
words of the
in the
describe
as one of the
to require
to
think exposed
meaning is
natural
liable
the
upon
depends
question
to the words
to be given
risk
of
under
Every indict
may lawfully
mandatory minimum
person
imprisonment or more is
think
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S.C.R
in the class
included
conviction
on
and
described
which
of
sentenced to so long
indictable
every
not
may
person
535
be
lawfully
term of imprisonment as
151
offence
five
THE KING
years
ROBINSON
think excluded
is
my
Expressing
that
on
imposition
much
The meaning which
in the
within
falls
not
ascribe
thcford English
1933
Dictionary
with
decision
of
is
expression
land
land
of
which
be
may
would
view
my
be
attributed
that
laid
agreeing
held
case
that
out in the purchase
some
to
under
disposition
natural
their
the
less
or
land
only were to be considered
section
them by
to
earlier
out in the purchase of
laid
the words of the
If
be
to
means subject
but
it
has
mean
does not
more
to
out in the purchase of
to be laid
liable
1933
or subject
is
is
VI
Volume
North
in an
Stirling
term
of
Edition
which
casualty
In In re Soltaus Trusts
prdbabie
the
risk or
contingency
class
more than five years
word liable
to the
as or
In Blacks Law Dictionary 3rd
page 235
page 1103 the meaning given is Exposed
given
the
law require
does the
meaning
We
appellant
it
that
is
how
not
are
consideration
of the words of the section
ever limited to
In order to ascertain the intention of Parliament we must
construe
the
statute
The
itself
deane
therefor
indictable
in the
are
an indictable
guilty of
is
majority of the
great
Code which
penalties
whole and not
as
vides
of
of
term
the
ens
my
the
stated
or
who
other
Provided
imprisonment
offence
In
one
Every
years
term
shorter
of which
that
liable
to
may
be
that
than
he
opinion
view
is
term
is
no
one
liaibie
toyears
Code pro
1054 of the
the
for
imprisonment
sentenced
one
shall
minimum
be
to
sentenced
term
if
consideraition of such
the
words
liable
to
any
or
for
any
for
any
shorter
any
prescribed
sections
to
term of years imprisonment mean
Criminal Code
life
imprisonment
for
convicted
In so far as Parliament
the
the
Every
follows
as
1054
term
only by
Criminal
prescribe
form
and
Section
in the
and
offences
following
offence
imprisonment who
one part
sections
may
according
1893
that
be said to grade
to
Ch
strength
followed
term
offences
their seriousness
629
by
such
it
in
does
at
Cariht
the
determine
will
guilty of such offence
person
of imprisonment of as
given
offence
is Does the law permit
that
think
which
to
answer
indictable
particular
described
words
in different
an affirmative
question
the
et
view
SUPREME COURT
536
151
TuKurn
RoBINsoN
et
al
Cartwright
by
so
which
before
sentence
as
in the
subject
mum
criminal
that
times of
three
proved
unless
an offence
macimum sentence
ment They set
maxima
It will next
minimum
is
as
so
to
the
construction
gives
the
statute
XA
which
for
my
relied
respondent
as
upon
the
if
opinion
words
new
creating
but whether
with
the
aid
room
no
leave
and that
Parliament
would allow
the
argues
of
an
while
Part
ambiguous
are
rules
aid the
that
as
intention
is
the
liberty of the
exists
of
to be
is
construction
words of the section
the
doubt
for
such
which
enactment
offence
of the applicable
the
this appeal and
to
is
mentioned
rules
the
that
intention
for
Should abide
Court
of Appeal
raised in that
its
so
result
Court may
in the
-which
of
the
the
cases
of His
King
Beatty which it was
King
and refer each
the
that
those
His Majesty
McKenna
King
Cuthbert and His Majesty
agreed
meaning
would render
contends
appellant
Majesty
possible
contends
effedtiive
not such ambiguity
reached the conclusion
construed
above
or
after calling in
determined
have
construed
if
appellant
in favour of the
ambiguity must be resolved
subject
mandatory
effect
without
In
the
and
only one
contains
meaning
sensible
sensible
the
permissible
must be
statute
which
for
of
years imprisonment
as five
of
statute
the
give
Here
that
much
The words
permissible
for which
449
least
at
years imprison
five
Code
the
in section
of as
sentence
the
in the field
that
be observed
prescribed
at least
is
minimum
Vhat described
offence
serious that
so
therefor
habitual
been convicted
have
to
mini-
appear to
be found to be
shall
no person
lesser
warrant
prescribed
are concerned
The words with which we
mean
to
Court
the
may
few offences
of
sentence
impose such
to
circumstances
particular
case
of
discretion
convicted
is
person
the
maximum
permissible
power and
the
within
it
leaving
me
each
fixing for
CANADA
OF
other
the
case
back
grounds of appeal
be dealt with
Appeals
Solicitor
for the
appellant
Solicitor
for the
respondents
to
MacLean
Hurley
allowed