A Toronto judge has sentenced a man to a “lenient” 12-month jail sentence for possessing a loaded handgun, taking into account the contents of two defence reports about his impoverished history and the impact of anti-Black racism in Canada.

The Crown objected to the admissibility of the reports — and how they could be used — at the sentencing hearing and is appealing, saying Superior Court Justice Shaun Nakatsuru “erred by imposing a manifestly unfit sentence” along with other grounds “as counsel may advise.”

Nakatsuru said in his written reasons, released this month, that while the sentence may leave some to “accuse me of being soft on ... gun crime,” he does not believe that is the case.

Kevin Morris, 26, was convicted by a jury in June of numerous firearm offences after he was caught with a loaded revolver following a foot chase with police.

The prosecution suggested he receive a four to four-and-a-half year penitentiary sentence. Defence lawyers argued the sentence should be one year before credit was given for charter breaches. Nakatsuru agreed there were charter breaches and reduced a 15-month sentence to one year. Morris had no criminal record.

On Dec. 13, 2014, police investigating a call about a home invasion in the city’s east end saw four men walking in a parking lot. Morris, then 22, ran, and was chased by an officer in a car who ran over his foot. Police found a .38-calibre revolver with five rounds of ammunition in his discarded jacket.

In his 22-page ruling, Nakatsuru wrote that important sentencing objectives can be achieved without an “undue heavy hand, but rather by punishment that is measured.

“Not handed out blindly or excessively. Based only upon fear. But one that can begin to address, one small step at a time, the problem of the disproportionate incarceration of black offenders,” the judge wrote.

The ruling cites numerous lengthy passages from the reports written by “very qualified academics and experts,” including one entitled the “Social History of Kevin Morris.” It contained details about his upbringing in a violence-plagued neighbourhood, and how Morris has been attacked twice, including being critically stabbed in 2013. In 2014, Morris was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

“I can see more clearly the path that has led you here. I understand it. When I look at it, especially your mental health condition that may have made you vulnerable to taking that gun, as influenced by the systemic factors surround you and your life, I find it lessens the blameworthiness of your actions,” the judge wrote, acknowledging the sentence was “lenient.”

The judge added “the young man who makes the choice to pick up a loaded illegal handgun will not likely be a product of a private school upbringing who has the security of falling back upon upper middle class family resources. Rather, he is likely to be a product of oppression, despair and disadvantage. Likely he is someone who cannot turn is life around on a dime even if he wanted to. In short, he is you, Mr. Morris.”

Nakatsuru also referred to his other ruling from earlier this year where he considered reports on the background of the Black offender, and the role anti-Black racism played in his life. The man, who had convictions for gun robberies, pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited gun and received six years in prison. That “moved the needle to a lower sentence” than what the Crown was asking, the judge wrote.

Defence lawyer Faisal Mirza, who represented Morris along with Gail Smith, praised the judge for passing a sentence that took into account comprehensive background about his client’s background.

“Too often black offenders are sentenced more harshly due to incomplete information. It is the duty of the defence and the Crown to ensure the judge has as much relevant information as possible before deciding how much jail to impose,” Mirza wrote in an email Wednesday.

Mirza said the ruling does not permit a “race-based discount.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“Other judges have imposed similar sentences for persons of different backgrounds when appropriate,” he wrote.

“In principle, this ruling promotes substantive equality and fairness. It is time that everyone working in criminal justice step up and try to understand more about anti-black racism and its impact on over-incarceration.”