Graham James Gets Bail

Read the Full Article and Response from Industry Experts at Express Pardons Here.

2010 Has been the year of pardon legislation changes

-        Changes to pardon laws inspired by Graham James and Karla Homolka

-        Pardons are becoming more difficult to obtain

-        Ex-Cons testify that pardons are incentive to not re-offend

-        More serious offenders may not be able to get pardons at all if the legislation keeps changing

GPS Tracking for Criminals?

First SCRAM ankle bracelets for individuals and ignition interlock devices for cars to monitor alcohol consumption, now GPS systems used specifically to track the whereabouts of criminals?

It could happen if provincial justice departments get their way. The idea was proposed to track offenders that are released on the conditions of a peace bond, a common sentence for individuals involved in domestic disputes and spousal abuse. The sentence is handed based on the condition that the offender keeps the peace, and stays away from their victim, for an allotted period of time in order to meet the conditions of their sentence and ultimately stay out of jail.

With the proposed GPS tracking systems, offenders released on the conditions of peace bonds could have their whereabouts monitored at all times. For an offender convicted of spousal abuse, monitoring bracelets could be enforced to keep an eye on the offender and provide additional protection to the offender’s victim, with the hopes of ultimately preventing further abuse. It is unclear as to whether or not this will pass into legislation but lawmakers hope to have this program introduced into the legal system.

Express Pardons can help individuals with criminal records obtain Canadian Pardons and US Entry waivers.

Concern over Criminals Coming into Canada aboard Migrant Ships

Government officials continue to reassure Canadians that each person who arrives in Canada aboard a migrant ship will be interviewed and assessed one by one to determine whether or no they are involved in any kind of criminal activity. According to Public Safety Minster Vic Toews “Officials from the Canada Border Services Agency will take the time necessary to identify and process individuals [and] and any individuals who endanger national security or who have engaged in the criminal enterprise of human-smuggling will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

This statement came following concern over the identity of individuals entering the country as refugees aboard the migrant ships. Migrant ships can be part of larger human-smuggling and human-trafficking organizations where criminals attempt to take advantage of Canada’s liberal refugee and immigration laws. According to Toews, the goal of the Canadian government “Is not to stall or stop political refugees, or refugees generally…[the goal] is to ensure that our refugee system is not hijacked by criminals or terrorists.”

If these individuals remain in Canada they will be expected to follow the laws that apply to every Canadian citizen. Express Pardons clears Canadian criminal records and helps Canadians enter the US if they have been denied entry.

Tougher Canadian Pardon Laws Lead to Heavier Reliance on Express Pardons

On June 29, 2010, the Canadian government passed tough new legislation that now makes the pardon process much more complicated.  This new law requires individuals with more serious offences to build a case for their pardon application.  It is now up to the individual to convince the National Parole Board that they deserve a pardon, making the application considerably more difficult than before.   Since the new legislation has passed, Express Pardons phone lines have been flooded with calls with questions regarding the changes.
Some of the most Frequently Asked Questions are:

• When do these changes take place?

Answer: Immediately as of June 29, 2010

• What are the changes?

Answer: Eligibility times lines have changed for all applicants and those individuals with more serious offences must prove to the National Parole Board that they both need and deserve a pardon.

• How do I know if these changes affect me?

Answer: Contact Express Pardons at 1-866-416-6772 to find out how these changes will affect you while learning how to get your pardon application underway.

• Am I still eligible?

Answer: Check out the Express Pardons website for information on your eligibility and getting an application started.

New Pardon Law Bill C-23A Passes Parliament in Final Hour

In case you haven’t been following the recent news regarding pardons, parliament has been in a race to pass legislation that would prevent Karla Homolka from becoming eligible for a pardon in July. Yesterday, in a last minute negotation, the parties came to an agreement to split the proposed Bill C-23 into two, Bill C-23A and C-23B.

Bill C-23A was then pass by Parliament in the final hour before they summer recess. Although the bill has yet to pass through the Senate and be signed into law, it likely will within the next few weeks.

To Summarize the changes being brought into effect:

• Eligibility waits for very serious offences will change from 5 years to 10 years
• Eligibility waits schedule 1 summary offences will change from 3 years to 5 years
• In the case of a serious offence (indictable or schedule 1 summary), granting the pardon at that time must provide a measurable benefit to the applicant, sustain his or her rehabilitation in society as a law-abiding citizen and not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
• The Onus is now on the applicant to demonstrate the above.

Here is the text of the newly amended Bill c23A:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that it divide Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, into two bills, namely Bill C-23A, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, and Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts;

that Bill C-23A be composed of

(a) a clause that sets out the short title as Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act;

(b) clause 9 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to renumber subsection 4(1) as section 4;

(ii) to amend sections 4 and 4.1 as follows:

Restrictions on application for pardon

4. A person is ineligible to apply for a pardon until the following period has elapsed after the expiry according to law of any sentence, including a sentence of imprisonment, a period of probation and the payment of any fine, imposed for an offence:

(a) 10 years, in the case of a serious personal injury offence within the meaning of section 752 of the Criminal Code, including manslaughter, for which the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years or more or an offence referred to in Schedule 1 that was prosecuted by indictment, or five years in the case of any other offence prosecuted by indictment, an offence referred to in Schedule 1 that is punishable on summary conviction or an offence that is a service offence within the meaning of the National Defence Act for which the offender was punished by a fine of more than two thousand dollars, detention for more than six months, dismissal from Her Majesty’s service, imprisonment for more than six months or a punishment that is greater than imprisonment for less than two years in the scale of punishments set out in subsection 139(1) of that Act; or

(b) three years, in the case of an offence, other than one referred to in paragraph (a), that is punishable on summary conviction or that is a service offence within the meaning of the National Defence Act.

Pardon

4.1 (1) The Board may grant a pardon for an offence if the Board is satisfied that

(a) the applicant, during the applicable period referred to in section 4, has been of good conduct and has not been convicted of an offence under an Act of Parliament; and

(b) in the case of an offence referred to in paragraph 4(a), granting the pardon at that time would provide a measurable benefit to the applicant, would sustain his or her rehabilitation in society as a law-abiding citizen and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Onus on applicant

(2) In the case of an offence referred to in paragraph 4(a), the applicant has the onus of satisfying the Board that the pardon would provide a measurable benefit to the applicant and would sustain his or her rehabilitation in society as a law-abiding citizen.

Factors

(3) In determining whether granting the pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the Board may consider

(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the offence;

(b) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence;

(c) information relating to the applicant’s criminal history and, in the case of a service offence within the meaning of the National Defence Act, to any service offence history of the applicant that is relevant to the application; and

(d) any factor that is prescribed by regulation.

(iii) to delete the remainder of clause 9 of BIll C-23;

(c) clause 10 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to amend section 4.2 by

deleting paragraph (1)(a);

deleting the words “if the applicant is eligible” from paragraph (1)(b);

substituting pardon for record suspension in subsections (1) and (2); and

(ii) to delete the remainder of clause 10 of Bill C-23;

(d) clause 12 of Bill C-23, amended as follows:

Paragraph 5(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) is evidence of the fact that

(i) the Board, after making inquiries, was satisfied that the applicant for the pardon was of good conduct, and

(ii) the conviction in respect of which the pardon is granted should no longer reflect adversely on the applicant’s character; and

(e) clause 15 of Bill C-23, amended

i. to amend subsection 6.3(2) by substituting pardon for record suspension; and

ii. to delete the remainder of subclause 15(1) of Bill C-23;

(f) clause 22 of Bill C-23, amended

i. to delete subclause 22(1) of Bill C-23; and

ii. to delete paragraph 9.1(c.2) in subclause 22(2) of Bill C-23;

(g) clause 24 of Bill C-23, amended to renumber the schedule to the Criminal Records Act as Schedule 2;

(h) a clause that adds to the Criminal Records Act a Schedule 1 having the same content as Schedule 1 in the schedule to Bill C-23;

(i) clause 46 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to delete the words “as though it were an application for a record suspension”; and

(ii) to replace the reference to subsection 47(1) with a reference to section 47;

(j) clause 47 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to delete subsection (2); and

(ii) to renumber subsection 47(1) as 47;

that Bill C-23B be composed of

(a) clauses 1 to 23 of Bill C-23;

(b) clause 24 of Bill C-23, amended to provide that Schedule 2 to the Criminal Records Act is replaced by the schedule set out in the schedule to the Bill;

(c) clauses 25 to 48 of Bill C-23; and

(d) a schedule that includes a Schedule 2 having the same content as Schedule 2 in the schedule to Bill C-23;

that Bills C-23A and C-23B be printed;

that, for the purposes of printing Bills C-23A and C-23B, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections in those bills as may be necessary to give effect to this motion; and

that Bill C-23A be deemed to have been reported from the Committee without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

Update: New Legislation Introduced to Change the Pardon System

As you may have heard yesterday, the conservative government introduced new legislation to make it more difficult, and in some cases impossible, to obtain a pardon. This proposed legislation will take some time to pass through parliament and be signed into law.

Here is what has been proposed:

• Pardons will be replaced with what the conservatives are referring to as “Record Suspensions“
• The period that must elapse before you become eligible  for a pardon will increase from 3 years to 5 years for “summary” offences, and from 5 years to 10 years for “indictable” offences.
• Anyone with a sexual offence or other serious offence will never be allowed a Record Suspension
• Anyone with 3 or more “indictable” offences will never be allowed a Record Suspension
• The onus will be placed on the applicant to prove the Record Suspension will help with theri rehabilitation
• The Board with be giving discretion in granted the pardon based on criteria such as the nature, gravity, duration and circumstances of the offence.

The important point here is that the legislation has not yet been signed into law. As the goverment is a minority, it will need the votes of the NPB and or Liberal party and as such, the bill will likely be debated and changed before it is signed into law. No one knows yet what the lagislation will look like after this process, but it seems quite likely something will be passed which would have adverse consequences on all those Canadians carrying criminal records.

Obvisouly, If you have a criminal record, you ought to apply now and get your pardon before it may be too late.

Torries to Introduce New Legislation Governing Pardons in Canada

In case you haven’t heard the news, parliament will soon be considering new legislation making it harder for some Canadians to obtain a Pardon. The impetus for this new push for legislation is the recent news that Graham James, a former hockey coach convicted of sexual abuse, received a Canadian pardon in 2007.

Here is the story as it appears on the Globe and Mail website:

The Conservative government is vowing to bring new legislation making it harder for some criminals – including sexual predators – to obtain a pardon in Canada.

In an interview, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said he will change the workings of the National Parole Board in the wake of the furor sparked by the 2007 pardon of Graham James, the hockey coach who preyed on his teenage players.

Mr. Toews made it clear he wants to make it harder for the board to issue pardons for some crimes, including those of a sexual nature, compared to pardons for offences like an impaired driving charge.

“I’m going to make legislation happen, I am going to bring forward and it will be up to the House to pass it,” he said. “I obviously have to consider the advice of my department and victims’ groups and police groups and others, but I’m committed to making this happen.”

Given “certain types of criminals cannot be rehabilitated,” he said, the National Parole Board will eventually have to consider “substantive differences between certain types of crimes” and the “pattern of criminal activity” in making its decisions.

However, he said he will not politicize the process by involving a minister in the review or approval for the 35,000 annual requests for pardons. “The option is legislative change [involving the Criminal Records Act] rather than changing who makes the determination,” he said.

Mr. Toews said he is working under orders of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who called him Friday after being informed by The Canadian Press of Mr. James’s 2007 pardon.

“The Prime Minister doesn’t call me every day, and he doesn’t call me on Good Friday because he has nothing else to do. He is very concerned about this issue,” Mr. Toews said.

Mr. Toews said he will speak to the National Parole Board about Mr. James’s case, but that upcoming legislative changes will not be retroactive.

“The Board is empowered to revoke a pardon on certain conditions, in certain situations, but I’m not aware in this situation that there are any grounds, under the legislation, to revoke the pardon,” he said. “I’m more concerned about looking at the broader issue of how pardons are granted and the legislative provisions governing that decision.”

Daniel Leblanc
Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Apr. 05, 2010 1:46PM EDT
Last updated on Monday, Apr. 05, 2010 1:48PM EDT

It is important to note here that many sexual offenders receive pardons. However, pardons for sexual offences come with restrictions which prevent those individuals from ever working with vulnerable persons, even after they have received the pardon. Moreover, the applicant must demonstrate a law-abiding lifestyle for at least 5 years or more before the National Parole Board will even consider granting them such a restricted pardon. The whole point of a pardon is to recognize that all people, even those with past sexual offences, have the ability to rehabilitate themselves. Without the opportunity to rehabilitate, there is a much greater risk that people will reoffend. The pardon, in its current form, is an important incentive for past offenders to remain crime free and rejoin society. It would be a shame if this one case motivates a change in legislation which removes or significantly diminishes that incentive.

Traveling to the United States more and more difficult for Canadians with Criminal Records

Author: Jared Church
If you have been following the news lately, flights to the U.S. from Canadian airports came crashing to a halt with news of the terrorist plot on Christmas Day. With each new terrorist plot uncovered and thwarted, the U.S. border and airport security are becoming more and more vigilent, and rightfully so. No one wants to witness the horrors of another September 11th type attack.

Unfortunately, the increased scrutiny at the border has had a few consequences. Much of the press on the matter has focused on the potential effect of increased border security on trade between Canada and the United States. The focus on trade is not unexpected. As of October, trade between the two countries totaled 351.31 Billion USD in 2009. Any security policy which hinders the exchange of goods across the border threatens the economic livelihood of both countries.

However, one of the less-observed consequences of the ever-tightening security on U.S. bound flights and border crossings is the effect on certain Canadians traveling to the United States.

The issue is criminal records, particularly old, minor offences such as theft and simple possession. Over 3 million Canadians have a criminal record of some form or another.

The United States has always had immigration laws prohibiting entry by people with past criminal records; however the laws were only loosely enforced prior to the 9/11.

Now, as border guards and customs officers do their due diligence on travelers, when the criminal record pops up on screen, they are forced to detain and process the unsuspecting Canadian traveler. Even for a 30 year old pot charge, a Canadian citizen can be forced through a 3 to 4 hour ordeal, including being fingerprinted by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency.

Fortunately, there are solutions available to Canadian travelers with criminal records. If they have not yet been denied entry, they can apply for a Canadian pardon. If they have already been denied entry, they will need a U.S. Entry Waiver. Although these legal applications are complex, they can be obtained through a legal service such as Express Pardons for a nominal fee.

About the Author:
Jared Church is a voting member of the Paralegal Society of Canada, and a leading expert in the field of Canadian Pardons, U.S. Entry Waivers, criminal record systems, and similar legal matters in Canada.

Feel free to Email Jared your questions at info@ExpressPardons.com
For more information on the author’s Better Business Bureau Accredited firm, visit www.ExpressPardons.com

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Traveling to the United States more and more difficult for Canadians with Criminal Records

Dr Peter Watts, Canadian science fiction writer, beaten and arrested at US border

By Cory Doctorow
POSTED AT 8:26 AM December 11, 2009
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html

Dr Peter Watts, Canadian science fiction writer, beaten and arrested at US border
My friend, the wonderful sf writer Peter Watts was beaten without provocation and arrested by US border guards on Tuesday. I heard about it early Wednesday morning in London and called Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She worked her contacts to get in touch with civil rights lawyers in Michigan, and we mobilized with Caitlin Sweet (Peter’s partner) and David Nickle (Peter’s friend) and Peter was arraigned and bailed out later that day.
But now Peter faces a felony rap for “assaulting a federal officer” (Peter and the witness in the car say he didn’t do a thing, and I believe them). Defending this charge will cost a fortune, and an inadequate defense could cost Peter his home, his livelihood and his liberty.

Peter’s friends are raising money for his legal defense. I just sent him CAD$1,000, because this is absolutely my biggest nightmare: imprisoned in a foreign country for a trumped-up offense against untouchable border cops. I would want my friends to help me out if it ever happened to me.

Update: Here’s more from Peter, in his own words: “Along some other timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the vehicle. In that other timeline I was not punched in the face, pepper-sprayed, shit-kicked, handcuffed, thrown wet and half-naked into a holding cell for three fucking hours, thrown into an even colder jail cell overnight, arraigned, and charged with assaulting a federal officer, all without access to legal representation (although they did try to get me to waive my Miranda rights. Twice.). Nor was I finally dumped across the border in shirtsleeves: computer seized, flash drive confiscated, even my fucking paper notepad withheld until they could find someone among their number literate enough to distinguish between handwritten notes on story ideas and, I suppose, nefarious terrorist plots. I was not left without my jacket in the face of Ontario’s first winter storm, after all buses and intercity shuttles had shut down for the night.

“In some other universe I am warm and content and not looking at spending two years in jail for the crime of having been punched in the face.”

Update: David Nickle sez, “This is just to let you know that we’ve got a snail-mail address for people to send cheques – Bakka Phoenix Science Fiction Bookstore has agreed to collect and forward them. The details are here on my blog.”

Sf writer David Nickle writes,

Hugo-award-nominated science fiction author Dr. Peter Watts is in serious legal trouble after he was beaten, pepper-sprayed and imprisoned by American border guards at a Canada U.S. border crossing December 8. This is a call to friends, fans and colleagues to help.
Peter, a Canadian citizen, was on his way back to Canada after helping a friend move house to Nebraska over the weekend. He was stopped at the border crossing at Port Huron, Michigan by U.S. border police for a search of his rental vehicle. When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter. On Wednesday, he posted bond and walked was taken across the border to Canada in shirtsleeves (he was released by Port Huron officials with his car and possessions locked in impound, into a winter storm that evening). He’s home safe. For now. But he has to go back to Michigan to face the charge brought against him.

The charge is spurious. But it’s also very serious. It could mean two years in prison in the United States, and a ban on travel in that country for the rest of Peter’s life. Peter is mounting a vigorous defense, but it’s going to be expensive – he’s effectively going up against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and he needs the best legal help that he can get.

He’s got that help, courtesy of one of the top criminal lawyers in the State of Michigan. We, Peter’s friends and colleagues here in Canada, want to make sure he gets the help he needs financially to come out of this nightmare whole.

The need for that help is real. While Peter is a critically successful science fiction writer, he is by no means a best-selling author. Without help, the weight of his legal fees could literally put him on the street by spring.

We can’t let that happen. So there’s going to be fundraising.

We’re going to think of something suitable in the New Year – but immediately, anyone who wants to help can do so easily. Peter’s website, rifters.com, has a link to a PayPal account, whimsically named the Niblet Memorial Kibble Fund. He set it up years ago for fans of the Hugo-nominated novel Blindsight and his Rifters books, to cover veterinary bills for the cats he habitually rescues from the mean streets of Toronto. Peter has made it clear that he doesn’t want to use the veterinary money to cover his lawsuit. But until we can figure out a more graceful conduit for the legal fund, that’s the best place to send donations for now. Just let Peter know that the donation’s for his legal defense, and that’s where it will go.

Here’s the link to the backlist page on Peter’s website, rifters.com, or you can just send a PayPal donation to donate@rifters.com.

The link to the Niblet Memorial Kibble Fund is in the middle of the page. The page also links to Creative Commons editions of all his published work, which he’s made available free. Peter would approve, we think, if you downloaded one or two or all of them. Whether you make a donation to the legal fund or not.

Update: David Nickle adds, “there’s a very small correction I need to make to the account that’s gone, erm, viral. I had thought that Peter had made his way back on foot; in fact, police released him in shirtsleeves at the Canadian side of the border. It was a winter storm, he was in shirtsleeves, but he didn’t have to cross the bridge on foot. I’d misunderstood Peter’s account on that point. “

Fleeing Canadian criminals targeted by new legislation

A May 2009 article by Jeff Hodson was published in the Metro Newspaper discussing new legislation being brought in which would add additional time to anyone found to have fled to a different province to avoid a warrant in their home province.

View the whole article here.

The issue of out-of-province warrants is nothing new to Express Pardons. Occationally, people apply for a pardon, not realizing that they still have an old warrant existing in another province they once lived in. The new legislation means they may face provincial extradition, and more jail time.

However, one option not mentioned for dealing with these warrants, is your option to have the offence transfered to your current province. By agreeing to plead to the offence, you can have the charge brought to your current province. By pleading to the offence, you can usually receive a more lenient sentence, and most importantly, you finalize your record and move one step closer to being eligible a pardon. Until you deal with your outstanding warrent, you can not receive a pardon (in most cases).

For more information on eligibility, visit this pardon eligibility page.