By Scott Newark

When Cst. Brian King pulled the vehicle with no rear plate over that night outside Saskatoon, he had no idea that the two men in the car had already decided they wanted to kill a cop. As evidence would subsequently disclose, the two hardened criminals told their friends of their plan which included removing the plate to attract a cop working alone. And now they had one.
Cst. King was ambushed and overpowered by the pair, handcuffed and driven to a remote location where he was executed by shots to the head and, as a final insult, the two avowed ‘cop haters’ smashed in his head.
The two killers were captured in short order and convicted of first-degree murder, the most serious offence in our criminal code. First-degree murder includes culpable homicide where the killing was planned and deliberate, committed pursuant to a contract, committed while committing other defined offences or for killing a peace officer acting in the course of their duties. The offence is so serious that Parliament deliberately chose not to allow the usual judicial sentencing discretion and instead mandated the sentence in law as being “life” imprisonment without eligibility to early release through parole until the expiration of 25 years.
Well, sort of.
When Parliament repealed the death penalty in the 70’s and substituted, ironically “life” imprisonment, it also quietly added a couple of exceptions to the supposed 25-year-no-parole provision. First, pursuant to s. 746 of the code, the clock on parole ineligibility started running from time of arrest if bail was denied as was almost always the case back then. Second, pursuant to s. 745, it permitted a convicted first-degree murderer to seek what was, in effect, an early shot at early parole from that life sentence after only 15 years. Defenders of the loophole dubbed it the ‘faint hope’ clause even though at one point early release approvals were running at approximately 80%.
To recap, the most serious offenders face a life sentence … which isn’t really life, it’s 25 years. And it isn’t really 25 years because s. 745 makes it 15 years …. And it isn’t really 15 years because s. 746 starts the ineligibility clock from time of arrest/first custody. Got that?
The effect of these loopholes started to become known in the mid 90’s when first-degree murderers were reaching their artificially early eligibility date. These cases personified a growing awareness of a disturbing ‘say-one-thing-do-another’ failing of the Canadian justice system. As well, because first-degree murder includes cop killers and the very worst cases like Clifford Olson, the issue attracted the attention of justice reform groups like the Canadian Police Association and victim advocacy organization across Canada.
Although relatively few in number, these cases are among the most horrific in circumstances and the toll they take on surviving family members. It was Cst King’s widow who explained that this kind of unimaginable crime turns the world upside down and in its aftermath nothing makes sense for survivors. The fact that the public justice system adjudges the killers and condemns them to the most severe penalty available restores a sense of sanity, of recognition and validation of their grief and their loss and a sense that ‘justice’ still exists.
When the King family learned 13 years after the conviction that the killers had applied for an early shot at early parole, their reaction was understandably one of horror and anxiety at what they were about to be thrust back into. Even more, as Cst. King’s widow and so many other victims have explained, it was a sense of anger and of betrayal by the justice system itself.
Imagine the reaction of Clifford Olson’s victims’ families attending a s. 745 pre hearing where Olson exercized his right to seek an early chance at early parole even though his submissions had to be made remotely because prison officials deemed him too dangerous to let out of jail to exercize his right to seek just that….early.
There are too many Canadians who have become crime victims because of the justice system’s myriad choices, priorities and outright incompetencies, but this systemic sleight of hand, once exposed, raised basic integrity and trust issues. Victims and many Canadians legitimately asked, “Are we not capable of better than this?”
Over the years, previous government’s have grudgingly made changes to the s. 745 process by narrowing its application. This included an ironically revealing amendment to require judges to state the possibility of applying for parole after only 15 years instead of the required usual solemn pronouncement of the sentence being life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. Passing a law to require judges to tell the truth is a telling and damning comment on the process and the law itself.
This past week saw MPs wrestle with important issues of ensuring parliament has access to the truth as a basic question of trust and integrity. During all of the appropriate uproar over these issues, the Senate passed Bill S-6 which a majority of MPs in House also supported and which, at long last, repeals s. 745 in its entirety.
Unlike some of the other government criminal justice bills before parliament and the opposition to them, this bill is more about systemic integrity than ideology. By passing it, parliament has taken an important step in strengthening the justice of our justice system. Let’s hope there’s more of that approach on the horizon.

Scott Newark is a former Alberta Crown Prosecutor and Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association who has also served as Ontario’s Special Security Advisor, Director of Operations for the Washington DC based Investigative Project on Terrorism and as an Advisor to the former Public Safety Minister. He is currently Vice Chair of the National Security Group and a regular contributor to ipolitics on criminal justice and security issues.