A TREASURY OF LEGAL WISDOM
So much for fundamentals
A “senior federal official” describes the new anti-terrorism legislation in
a nutshell: “We remove the right to silence.”
Source: The Globe and Mail
Necessary kidnappings
Remember when the Supreme Court narrowly defined the defence of necessity
in the Robert Latimer case last year? Something about an “air of reality” to
the imminent harm, judged objectively? Justice James Donnelly of the Ontario
Superior Court may have missed that. The result is last month’s acquittal of
Carline Vandenelson, a Stratford mother who admitted to abducting her children
from their father because the courts limited her access. Ms. Vandenelson
claimed necessity on the grounds that she believed being deprived of their
mother would cause her children irreparable harm. In leaving the defence to
the jury, Justice Donnely stated:
“Ms. Vandenelsen acted in developing circumstances and a swirl of powerful
emotions… She was involved in a high-stakes contest. At issue was a precious
asset, the formative years and the welfare of her children.”
So, it may be objectively necessary to ignore court rulings?
Source: The Globe and Mail, The National Post
I’d confess too
Canadian police are worried that suspects will figure out their methods
now that the Supreme Court, in R. v. Mentuck, has refused to uphold
publication bans of undercover tactics. Here’s how they got a confession in
this case, as outlined by Iacobucci J.
“Following the first trial, the respondent was targeted by the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police in an undercover operation code-named Operation
Decisive. The undercover operation followed a pattern
commonly employed by Canadian police. The respondent was invited by
undercover officers to join a fictitious
criminal organization. He was then asked to undertake certain
tasks, the claimed importance of which was increased over time. The tasks
included counting large sums of money and delivering parcels. The respondent
was then told to be honest about his involvement in the murder of Amanda Cook.
When he denied involvement, he was told that the “Boss” of the organization
was angry with the person who had recruited the respondent as the respondent
was a liar. The respondent was again encouraged to discuss the murder
honestly. He was told that the criminal organization would arrange for a
person dying of cancer to confess to the crime, and thereafter would provide
assistance to the respondent in suing the government for wrongful
imprisonment.”
Source: R. v. Mentuck
 |
||
|
Please feel free to add these to your site |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Spirit and Truth |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Please rate this site at Just4Christ Top 50 Christian Sites |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||
