Ottawa eliminates two-for-one custody credit -

Ottawa eliminates two-for-one custody credit

New rules limit credits for pre-trial custody to time served


The federal government will no longer allow judges to grant double or triple credit to convicts for time served in pre-sentence custody. New rules implemented on Monday mandate a one-to-one ratio in reducing sentences for time already served, though judges can still award pre-sentencing credits using a 1.5-for-one ratio under extenuating circumstances, such as a trial being delayed through no fault of the accused. However, exceeding the one-to-one ratio will require judges to include a reason for doing so in the court record. In an interview with CTV News Channel, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the previous system “was undermining people’s confidence in the criminal justice system,” and said the new rules have the “unanimous” support of provincial attorneys general.

CTV News

Filed under:

Ottawa eliminates two-for-one custody credit

  1. Its about time, this has been a long time coming.. now hopefully this will act as a deterent for some of these punks that go and commit certain crimes and know full well if there caught that there actually going to have to serve some time if there found guilty.. Its a great start… whats next, dont stop now !!!

    • you can be or this change if you want of course true north, but would you mind keeping your enthusiasm within the bounds of reality? they were serving time up to now! what did you think the credit was based on?????

      • Of course they were serving time! The point was they were getting 2 for 1 and in some cases 3 to 1 credits for every day served.. sit in remand for 30 days ..get 90 days credit for time served.,deduct that from a say a 6 month sentence your going to do less then 90 days on a 6 month sentence then deduct time off for good behaviour you might do around 2.5 months on a 6 month bit..oops dont forget early parole, halfway houses etc, etc.. sorry about my entusiasm , but the thoughts of possibly making our streets a little safer just makes me kind of Cheery……..

        • Wow.. it's almost like it was some sort of incentive for crown prosecutors to move quickly.

          I say 2 for 1 if the crown is the reason for the delay, 1 for 1 if the defence is the reason for the delay.

          • Now we`re talking, Crown would probably love the idea,, Not so much by the Defence Lawyers or thier Clients though…oooh well…….

        • then why did you say:

          "his will act as a deterent (sic) for some of these punks that go and commit certain crimes and know full well if there caught that there actually going to have to serve some time if there found guilty.

          • I would like to respond to you sea-n-mountains, but I honestly dont understand the Question,Sorry..anybody clarfy this for me please??

          • we will try to make this simple for you true north

            saying "if there (sic) caught that there (sic) actually going to have to serve some time" implies they up to now would not have to serve time if found guilty. this is not factually accurate.

          • ''Actually going to have to serve some time''….was supposed to be sarcastic. My mistake i guess i should have put quotation marks around the phrase or something. Is there a proper Journalistic way to signify sarcasm? I certainly dont want to make that mistake again thankyou..

          • hey True North, now worries. unfortunately while the internet is becoming our most relied upon source of communication it is also probably one of the most ambiguous. I also just read the thread below and Like Jenn, truly appreciate your willingness to consider the other side's point of view too (I wish I was better at that at times). That said out conversation probably demonstrates how the heavy sarcasm did neither of us any favors in advancing our points! anyways… welcome!

          • Hey sea-n- mountains.. thankyou for the Welcome.. and your right about the heavy sarcasm, you dont accomplish anything that way. Until next time , again thanx…..

  2. I really don't think this will make a lot of difference. There are certain people in Society that could care less how much more time they have to spend behind bars! And what if you are found not guilty at trial? Any compensation? Not likely!

    • Good point, as far as compensation goes i dont think there is any compensation if your found not guilty now is there?

      • Hey, True North, kudos to you! I was all set to write you off as yet another Conservative troll who doesn't even understand what he's writing, but then you come along and see the other side of the argument. My sincere compliments.

        • Thankyou for the Compliment Jenn, theres Always 2 sides to every story, I appologize that i might not be as accomplished in my writing skills as a lot of you folks on here, but i am pretty new to this.. Pretty interesting !, In the future i`ll try not to come accross adamant…Learn as I go !!

  3. Yet the underline problem still remains. The experience in prison waiting for a trial differs dramatically between people who could afford bail and served their sentence and people in holding cells waiting for trials.

    Their jails are overcrowded and they have no access to social programs

    What is going to happen when someone who can't afford bail (but is found guilty) sues the government because they were subject to conditions during their time in jail that someone who could afford bail (but was later found to be guilty) was not. If the experience in jail differs significantly between people of wealth and people without wealth (which according to all involved it does), this is simply going to lead to a very embarrassing supreme court case