Explains 2 legal issues in this case, including how it relates to the Canadian Charter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lyPJsNHdQw

[The Gladue case, which is also known as R. v. Gladue, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision from 23 April 1999. It states that lower courts should consider an Indigenous offender's background and make appropriate sentencing decisions based on section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code. Background In Nanaimo, BC in 1995, a 19 year old Cree female named Jamie Tanis Gladue, murdered her common-law husband, Reuben Beaver, by stabbing him. Gladue was intoxicated with her blood alcohol content being approximately twice the legal limit for operating a conveyance in BC (which is 80mgs according to the criminal code of Canada). Gladue had suspected that her husband was cheating on her with her older sister while they were all at a party earlier in the evening. Gladue confronted Beaver after they returned to their home and he admitted his indelity while also insulting Gladue. An argument ensued and escalated to the point where Gladue fatally stabbed Beaver in the chest after chasing him out of their house with a knife. Gladue was charged with seconddegree murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter. During trial, the judge heard evidence that since the offence, Gladue had demonstrated remorse, received attended counselling for substance abuse and completed Grade 10. In the original trial, the judge ruled that S. 718.2(e) CC did not apply because she was not living on a reserve at the time of the murder. S. 718.2(e) CC states that a court must consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances for all offenders, with particular attention being paid to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. The trial judge sentenced Gladue to three years in prison. Supreme Court of Canada Ruling Gladue appealed the sentencing decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The BC Court of Appeal agreed on the sentence that the trial judge imposed as fair and upheld it. However, the BC Court of Appeal also claried Section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code as interpreted by the trial judge. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (500) by defence. The 800 explained that the intent of S. 718.2(e) CO was to address the higher rate of incarceration for Indigenous offenders by also considering restorative justice in sentencing which views crime as harm done to people and seeks to rehabilitate offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community. As per S. 718.2(e) CC, a judge may recommend restorative justice practices instead of sending someone to a custodial sentence. That being said, the restorative justice must be agreed to by the offender and be based in their community beliefs. It could involve practices such as the use of a healing circle, where community members, the accused and the victim (should they wish to participate) discuss and implement methods to redress the actions of the offender. Such restorative justice practices are based on the belief that they may help to heal historic injustices, such as residential schools and economic dislocation, that have had societal repercussions. Because of this, as the SCC stated, such sentencing is by its very nature corrective. That being said, the court was also very clear in noting that restorative justice practices do not have to be used and that the punishment must still be appropriate to the offence committed. The $00 was also transparent in its ruling thatjudges may not, as in Gladue's case, excuse an Indigenous offender from consideration of S. 718(2)(e) CC based on residence, but rather must consider an Indigenous community in a broad sense, including urban or more widely spread communities and networks of support. Ultimately, the SCC upheld Jamie Gladue's sentence of three-years imprisonment and noted that she had received parole after six months under controlled release provisions. In Summary The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the sentencing judge has a statutory duty, imposed by S. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, to consider the unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders. If they do not make those considerations, it could result in the courts imposing a sentence that does not \"t" and, therefore, is not consistent with the fundamental principle of proportionality. As such, application of what we now call the \"Gladue principles\" is required in every case involving an Indigenous offender. Gladue Reports and Rights The Gladue case has led to the development of what we call \"Gladue reports," which are personal histories, prepared by or on behalf of offenders, that outline mitigating factors for judges to consider in sentencing. All persons who self-identify as Indigenous, including First Nations, Mtis and Inuit, have Gladue rights and may prepare (or have prepared) a Gladue report for consideration during sentencing. Such a report might outline how a particular offender has been marginalized or othenNise affected as a result of their upbringing. The Gladue case also helped to establish \"Gladue courts." which are legal systems specifically made for Indigenous peoples. Gladue courtjudges, for example, specialize in matters concerning Indigenous peoples. It is important to understand that Indigenous offenders do not automatically benet from alternative sentencing decisions based on Gladue rights. Each sentencing is based on many factors and, therefore, alternative sentencing is not automatic. Sentences for serious crimes are more likely to be the same as for non-Indigenous offenders