Students, academics, and lawyers often think of the substantive criminal law as if it were just another branch of the common law. On this understanding, it falls to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis what conduct should and should not be criminal and which defendants deserve punishment. In Sovereignty, Restraint, and Guidance, Michael Plaxton argues that this model badly distorts both the role of the courts and the central purpose of criminal offences. In the course of a wide-ranging discussion, Plaxton presents an alternative and innovative vision – one that more accurately reflects Parliament’s constitutional position and more successfully explains the bulk of Canadian criminal law. Sovereignty, Restraint, and Guidance will provoke discussion and debate among practitioners, students, theorists, and anyone interested in reflecting upon the state of criminal law in Canada today.