CLU3M1: UNIT 1 CA CASE ANALYSIS
STATUTE LAW AND COMMON LAW
R. V. SAULS,
[2002] B.C.J. NO. 3083
BRITISH COLOMBIA PROVINCIAL COURT
Four aboriginal people (Mark Sauls, Trevor Dennis, Roseanne Jack and Roderick Anderson) participated in a roadblock of a highway in British Columbia and hindered a nearby excavation. The excavation for the expansion of the Sun Peaks resort caused a dispute between the British Columbia government and the Neskonlith Indian Band. As a result, these aboriginals obstructed both lanes of the highway for hours holding up traffic and causing havoc. The RCMP then negotiated with the accused and the blockade was eventually removed after which two of the accused jumped onto the excavation site and lay down in front of an excavator, forcing it to stop. The accused were charged with intimidation from and mischief under the criminal code. Mark Sauls and his band members maintained that they had acted “with legal justification or excuse, and with color of right” if which true under Section 429 of the Criminal Code would give them the right to act as they did. It was their position that they honestly believed the highway and resort were on aboriginal land and they had the legal right not only to control the land but to eject trespassers from it. The trial judge however dismissed their defence of Color of rights with the ruling that the group did not have an honest mistaken belief of the law but rather disregarded it. As well, if their claims were true, the method in which they attempted to prove their point were extreme signifying a more political statement rather than honest belief. They were found guilty of the charges and three of the accused thus received a sentence of 90 days of imprisonment for blockading a road...
... middle of paper ...
...ed by the convicted can be found in Section 429 of the Canadian Criminal Code. In conclusion, the colour of rights Statute Law was interpreted and applied correctly by the trial judge who made a decision of Common Law rather than solely based on Statute Law.
EXTRA NOTE:
After further research, I found that the decision by the trial judge was appealed by the convicted when they presented the following arguments: failed to consider the aboriginal perspective, erred in applying the wrong test for what constitutes colour of right or honest belief, erred in applying the wrong test for mens rea (conscious guilty state of mind), failed to apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and erred in making material errors of fact on the evidence. The appeal judge, Honourable Mr. Justice Cole, dismissed all the arguments as contradictory, opinionated and self-serving.
Maidment, M. (2009). When justice is a game: Unravelling wrongful convictions in Canada. Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
In 1901, the same year Australia was federated, the Commonwealth constitution stated that “Aboriginal natives votes shall not be counted” and thus placing them into the flora and fauna section and introducing the white Australian policy (Korff, 2011). David Unaipon was just 29 years old when this occurred (Gizmodo, 2004). While Unaipon was alive there were many instances of institutionalised racism that further widened the gap between aborigines and Caucasians (Gizmodo, 2004). In 1926, when Unaipon was 54 years old 11 aborigines were murdered, however when the criminal was caught, they were let free (Korff, 2011). This shows that aborigines were being discriminated against throughout Unaipon’s life with many laws targeted against them and many legal options being taken away from them. It was only in 1967 that the indigenous were given basic rights, and were included in the Australian census and fully classed as a “person” and recognised for this (Korff, 2011). Sadly, this was held 109 days after Unaipon died and proves that he had to endure racism during the entirety of his life. It is evident through these examples that racism played a major role in why David Unaipon’s ability was not used in science and this is seen through the institutionalised racism present during Unaipon’s life.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
The ‘Wave Hill Walk Off’ proved an establishment to the liberation of Aboriginal people from the struggles for rights and freedom. The effectiveness of this movement is judged upon the influence on rights and freedom, function of the actions taken, and the outcomes of events within this movement. Through their actions, the Gurindji showed the vitality of Aboriginal desire to achieve a practice that respected their identity, traditions and rights to their traditional lands.
...ndigenous recognition and the removal of racist remarks has been an on-going theme for a vast majority of time. The necessity of Constitutional reform to close the gap on cultural divide as well as support the on-going concept of reconciliation is essential in ensuring Australia continues to improve and nurture its relationship with Indigenous peoples. The process of amendment through referendum has proven to be problematic in the past, with the success rate exceptionally low. Though with key factors such as bi-partisan support, widespread public knowledge and correct management, the alteration to remove racial discrimination and provide recognition for Indigenous persons within the Constitution is highly achievable. If proposed and eventually passed, this will provide assistance in eliminating many of the cultural gaps Indigenous persons face throughout society.
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
From 1945 to 2010 Canada treated the First Nations people unfairly when it came to their rights to the land and use of its bountiful resources. In order to make things fair, the Canadian government issues treaties, which were meant to initiate the regulations of the land and its resources whatever they may be, and to verify the rights, obligations, and ownership of the land; But sometimes these treaties are broken. A well-known example of aboriginal injustice happened in the year 1990 from July 11th – September 26th. The Oka Crisis, as it was called, was a 78 day confrontati...
Barsh, R. 2005. Aboriginal peoples and the justice system: Report of the national round table on Aboriginal justice issues (Book Review). Great Plains Research, 359-362.
Before the Indigenous Australians gained Land Rights in Australia, in 1788 the East Coast of Australia was claimed by the English Monarch and was called Crown Land. The reason behind the English Monarch's claim for Crown Land was that they believed that that land was “terra nullius”, meaning land belonging to no one”. In 1976 the Northern Territory was the first state government to allow Indigenous Australians to claim Crown Land and reserves in the Northern Territory that no one had the use for. Commission and increased funding was also granted to Indigenous Australians through the 1975 Racial Discrimination act made by the Whitlam Government. These acts and decisions were then overruled against in 1985 by the High Court. Article 8 “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution of law” and Article 16 “the family (...) is entitled to protection by society and the State” of the UDHR are evidence of the discrimination Indigenous Australians faced by the government as they were once again stripped away of their human rights and land titles. Indigenous Australians only began to grant land from the English Monarch after the case between Mabo and others versus the State of Queensland took place that decided in favour of
Canada is a nation known for its multicultural society. In such a diverse nation many would believe equality would exist. However it does not; and it is evident in the Criminal Justice System in Canada. The racial disparity in the Criminal Justice System is the result of bias treatment of certain individuals based on their race. The selective prosecution of visible minorities, immigrants and Aboriginals has been recognized as a racial inequality and corrupted the Criminal Justice System. The unequal treatment of immigrants and Aboriginals within the justice system has become evident through various forms. Canada`s colonial past has greatly influenced the judicial system and it seems obvious that race plays a factor in many of the facets of
In the Barton vs. Gladue case the jury did not see this as manslaughter, as the jury consisted on most men nine to be exact while only two women (Hunt & Sayers, 2015) who if disagreed with the verdict would be trumped as the majority vote overrules and it is also worth noting there were no aboriginal persons in that jury (Busby, 2015), so how could they identify or understand Gladue better and if that was the case the verdict may have been different. And for this reason we can suspect the power relations between men and women, different cultural oppressions and women whom are perceived as an oppressed group, so Gladue had no fighting
Decades later in 2001 the AIDWYC (Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted) became actively involved in the case and asked for it’s reopening. After the review of the case by retired Justice Fred Kaufman and his submission of a 700-page report, in 2004 then Justice Irwin Cotler found “that there was a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage to justice likely occurred” (Timeline of the Truscott Case Truscott Timeline). Also, Irwin Cotler made the Ontario court of appeal listen to the Truscott case again as it was new, with fresh evidence. In 2006 the Court of Appeal listened to witnesses that claimed to see Truscott with Harper on his bicycle crossing a bridge towards Highway 8, years ago on the day of the murder in 1959.