OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for the possession and access of child pornography are unconstitutional. The decision was announced on Friday by a nine-judge panel.

This ruling stems from a challenge brought by two men in Quebec who pleaded guilty to these offenses. They argued that the mandatory minimum sentences violated their rights under the Charter, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. The Crown appealed the lower court's decision to the Supreme Court, asserting that such offenses must be met with strong denunciation and that the sentences should reflect the serious harm caused to victims and society.

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Quebec Court of Appeal's ruling, which found the mandatory minimum sentences to be unconstitutional. The court noted that while the sentences aimed to deter and denounce these crimes, they also stripped judges of the discretion to impose appropriate sentences based on individual circumstances.

The ruling comes as the governing Liberal Party has pledged to enhance sentencing and bail conditions for serious, violent, and sexual offenses. Justice Minister Sean Fraser recently introduced a new bill aimed at making it more difficult for certain accused individuals to obtain bail and to toughen sentencing laws for serious crimes. However, this bill does not propose changes to mandatory minimum sentences.

Fraser has indicated that further legislation will be introduced in the coming months to specifically address sexual abuse and other severe crimes against children.

Since 2015, the Supreme Court has invalidated several mandatory minimum sentencing laws, citing their incompatibility with the Charter's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Recent cases, including the 2023 decisions known as Hills and Bertrand Marchand, have also seen the court rule against mandatory minimums for other offenses, such as discharging a firearm into a house and child luring.

The court's findings emphasize that mandatory minimum sentences cannot be justified for offenses that encompass a wide range of conduct with varying levels of moral culpability. This approach could negatively impact young offenders who have a high potential for rehabilitation.

Further developments are expected as the government continues to address issues related to child exploitation and sentencing laws.