- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,846
- Reaction score
- 115,428
Defence lawyer telling media there will be an appeal based on what they believe are errors in the judgment.
(pretty standard stuff)
(pretty standard stuff)
Guilty verdict without a body based on circumstantial evidence. :clap::clap::clap:
Vader will be sentenced when court reconvenes Thursday afternoon.
Imo, interpretation of circumstantial evidence. The appeal will be interesting - I really don't think he did it.
Imo, interpretation of circumstantial evidence. The appeal will be interesting - I really don't think he did it.
[...]
CTV News Legal Analyst Edward Prutschi said that it appears Justice Dennis Thomas relied on Section 230 of the Criminal Code, which was declared unconstitutional in 1990 case R. v. Martineau.
Prutschi told CTV News Channel that Section 230 stated that if a person died during a robbery, “which is what the accusation was here,” then “automatically you’re guilty of murder.”
According to Prutschi, since that section was struck down in 1990, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had “the foresight” to know they were going to cause someone’s death in order to prove murder.
[...]
I'm having an absolute meltdown ffs.I think this is the reason we haven't heard anything on sentencing this afternoon:
Legal experts suggest judge made serious error in Vader verdict
Let's see how/if the judge can remedy this before sentencing.
Surely it is "subjective foresight of death" when you take a gun, point it at someone, and kill them. How would that reasonably get reduced to manslaughter?
Section 230 allows for a murder verdict if a wrongful death occurs during the commission of another crime, such as robbery. But that section was found unconstitutional in 1990 by the Supreme Court.
The revised definition of murder states the killings must be intended to be murder, which the Crown was unable to prove in the Vader case, the legal experts say.
<bbm>Murder in commission of offences
230 Culpable homicide is murder where a person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit high treason or treason or an offence mentioned in section 52 (sabotage), 75 (piratical acts), 76 (hijacking an aircraft), 144 or subsection 145(1) or sections 146 to 148 (escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody), section 270 (assaulting a peace officer), section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm), 273 (aggravated sexual assault), 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement), 279.1 (hostage taking), 343 (robbery), 348 (breaking and entering) or 433 or 434 (arson), whether or not the person means to cause death to any human being and whether or not he knows that death is likely to be caused to any human being, if
(a) he means to cause bodily harm for the purpose of
(i) facilitating the commission of the offence, or
(ii) facilitating his flight after committing or attempting to commit the offence,
and the death ensues from the bodily harm;
(b) he administers a stupefying or overpowering thing for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), and the death ensues therefrom; or
(c) he wilfully stops, by any means, the breath of a human being for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), and the death ensues therefrom.
(d) [Repealed, 1991, c. 4, s. 1]
Although Section 230 has not been in force for 26 years, it has never been repealed and remains in the Criminal Code. Sankoff suggested that Thomas simply erred in citing Section 230.