Verdict de culpabilité infirmé: le droit à la défense pleine et entière pour le policier Deslauriers

Le procès pour homicide d’un policier qui a tué un adolescent lors d’une intervention devra être tenu de nouveau et devra être présidé par un autre juge dit la Cour suprême. Dans l’arrêt R. c. Deslauriers[1], la plus haute Cour du pays a rejeté l’appel de plein droit de la Poursuite et a confirmé la décision majoritaire de la Cour d’appel du Québec[2]. Cette décision évalue deux éléments d’intérêts : la preuve recevable pour appuyer une défense sous les articles 25 et 34 du Code Criminel de même que la force probante du témoignage d’un expert sur l’emploi de la force par un policier lors de l’exercice de ses fonctions. Contexte  Le 22 janvier 2014, le défendeur Éric Deslauriers, sergent à la Sûreté du Québec, reçoit de l’information concernant un véhicule volé et relié à des vols de guichets automatiques. Dans le stationnement de la polyvalente de Sainte-Adèle, le sergent… Lire la suite

Voluntary intoxication: Once again a defense for violent offenses

On June 3rd, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared section 33.1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional. Section 33.1 was enacted in 1995 and had been in force in Ontario for 25 years, until the recent R. v. Sullivan decision[1]. This decision dealt jointly with two appeals of striking similarity – that of David Sullivan and Thomas Chan. Both Sullivan and Chan were convicted of violence-based offences after ingesting drugs and subsequently entering a state of alleged automatism. Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code prohibits individuals charged with violence-based offences from using a defence of automatism resulting from self-induced intoxication[2]. Under this provision, defendants cannot use as a defence that they lacked the voluntariness and general intention required by the offence to which they are accused[3]. Furthermore, defendants’ actions that interfere or threaten to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person are deemed, under section 33.1, to “depart markedly… Lire la suite

Amendments to the Canadian Bail Hearing: Bill C-75 and COVID-19

with the collaboration of Jeremy van Doorn, counsel Passed in June 2019 and implemented gradually ever since, Bill C-75 amended the Criminal Code in a way that impacts the state of the Canadian bail hearing.[1] Bail hearings require delicacy; judges must draw the balance between protecting the rights of the accused, while ensuring the safety of the public, the accused’s presence at trial and the confidence in the administration of justice. Release is the default, unconditionally or otherwise, unless the prosecution can demonstrate the necessity of pre-trial detention on one of the three grounds. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, these interests become more difficult to weigh when public and individual health are considered. This article discusses the correspondence between the bail hearing jurisprudence and Bill C-75’s amendments in the context of COVID-19. Judicial History The state of the bail hearing in Canada is grounded in a trilogy of… Lire la suite