R v Latimer

Last updated

R v Latimer
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: June 14, 2000
Judgment: January 18, 2001
Full case nameRobert William Latimer v Her Majesty The Queen
Citations [2001] 1 SCR 3; 2001 SCC 1; (2001), 193 DLR (4th) 577; [2001] 6 WWR 409; (2001), 150 CCC (3d) 129; (2001), 39 CR (5th) 1; (2001), 80 CRR (2d) 189; (2001), 203 Sask R 1
Prior historyJudgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
RulingConviction and prison sentence upheld
Holding
The ten-year minimum sentence in this case did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the fairness of the trial was not compromised by the lateness of the decision on whether the jury could consider the defence of necessity.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by The Court
Bastarache and LeBel JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

R v Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy Latimer. The case had sparked an intense national debate as to the ethics of what was claimed as a mercy killing. [1] In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Latimer was not cruel and unusual and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The court also ruled that Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist. The prison sentence was thus upheld, although the court specifically noted that the federal government had the power to pardon him.

Contents

Background

The Supreme Court described the background this way: Robert Latimer's daughter, Tracy Latimer, was 12 years old and had cerebral palsy. As a result, she was quadriplegic, could not speak, and had the mental abilities of an infant. However, she was not dying of her disability. It was also believed that a feeding tube could help her health, but her parents believed such a medical device would be "intrusive". Thus, numerous surgeries were performed, and after the scheduling of another surgery in 1993, her father, who viewed the upcoming operation as also being cruel, "formed the view that his daughter's life was not worth living". He proceeded to poison her with carbon monoxide. When the police made the discovery, Latimer denied responsibility but later admitted he had killed her. He was convicted of second degree murder, but in R v Latimer , [2] the Supreme Court overturned that finding due to the Crown's improper actions at the jury selection stage.

In the subsequent second trial, Latimer was again convicted of second degree murder, but the trial judge declined to sentence him to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, the sentence set out in the Criminal Code . The trial judge held that on the facts of the particular case, that sentence would be cruel and unusual, contrary to s. 12 of the Charter. [3] He instead sentenced Latimer to one year of imprisonment, followed by a year on parole. On appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge and sentenced Latimer to life imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for ten years. [4] Latimer then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing not only that the sentence was too long, but also that the trial was unfair because the judge decided the defence of necessity could not be argued even though this decision came only after the defence had argued it. It was also claimed the judge had misled the jury into thinking that they could influence the length of the sentence. Since many in the jury wished for a lighter sentence than that prescribed by the Criminal Code, it was argued the jury might have resorted to jury nullification had they known they could not decide the length of the sentence.

Decision

The decision upholding the ten-year sentence was unanimous and was written by the court.

Defence of necessity

The court first held that not only was the defence of necessity unable to justify Latimer's actions but also the inapplicability of the defence should have been so obvious that his lawyers should have anticipated its rejection, and therefore the fact that judge rejected it only after the defence was argued was not unfair. The court first cited precedent that the defence of necessity is invoked only where "true 'involuntariness' is present". This involves being confronted with a serious danger, no other options but to commit a crime to avoid that danger, and "proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided." While the court acknowledged that the individual's subjective views in measuring approaching dangers and other options could be taken into account, along with an objective assessment (this was called a "modified objective test"), in this case the defence of necessity failed. First, the claimed danger being avoided, the surgery, threatened not Mr. Latimer but his daughter. Moreover, the court wrote that "ongoing pain did not constitute an emergency in this case". The court believed Mr. Latimer should have been able to understand this, especially since there were alternatives to surgery, such as the feeding tube. The court went on to find that Latimer had other alternatives to killing his daughter, namely that "he could have struggled on", albeit "with what was unquestionably a difficult situation".

The court also ruled that subjective views could not influence an assessment whether the crime is worse, equal or lesser than the threatened danger to the criminal, since "fundamental principles of the criminal law" would be sacrificed. In this case, the rights of the disabled, based in section 15 of the Charter, were considered to be the important factor in considering how serious the crime was. The court had difficulties in deciding whether any type of emergency could justify homicide, and at any rate found Tracy's death was worse than the pain Tracy might have felt during life.

Jury nullification

The court went on to reject the argument that the trial was unfair because the chances of jury nullification were impaired by the judge. As the court argued, there is no right to a trial in which one's chances of jury nullification are not impaired. Indeed, the justice system is not supposed to advocate jury nullification. Moreover, the judge's apparent suggestion that the jury might have some influence in determining the sentence was not considered misleading or unfair because, while juries cannot decide sentences, they can indeed make recommendations.

Section 12

Finally, the court rejected the argument that the minimum ten-year sentence might be so long as to be cruel and unusual and thus unconstitutional under section 12 of the Charter. Since a section 12 test demands consideration of the seriousness of the crime, the court pointed out that the crime led to the "most serious of all possible consequences, namely, the death of the victim, Tracy Latimer". Consideration of the mens rea of the offence therefore guided the court to argue that even though Latimer had been convicted of second as opposed to first-degree murder, "second degree murder is an offence accompanied by an extremely high degree of criminal culpability".

At this point, the court, in balancing other factors in the case, namely how Mr. Latimer had planned his crime and did not regret it, and conversely, how he was distressed over Tracy's condition and was otherwise respected, did not find that any of the positive factors outweighed the crime. Moreover, the punishment was also considered by the court to be valid because it might discourage others from taking similar actions.

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

Robert William Latimer is a Canadian canola and wheat farmer who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his daughter Tracy Lynn Latimer. This case caused a national controversy concerning the definition and ethics of euthanasia as well as the rights of people with disabilities, and resulted in two Supreme Court decisions, R. v. Latimer (1997), on section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and later R. v. Latimer (2001), concerning cruel and unusual punishments with reference to section 12 of the Charter. Latimer was released on day parole in March 2008 and was granted full parole in December 2010.

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who characterized the decision as a "Number 10 earthquake".

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Ring overruled a portion of Walton v. Arizona, which had rejected that contention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Canada</span>

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case R. v. Smith (1987), in which it was partially defined, and R. v. Latimer (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer protested that his long, mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter was cruel and unusual.

<i>R v Stone</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of the defence of automatism in a criminal trial.

In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger.

<i>Lewis v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Lewis v R, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821 is a famous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the relevance of motive in a criminal trial. The Court held that motive is never an essential element of a criminal offence but can be used as evidence to prove intent.

<i>R v Latimer</i> (1997) Supreme Court of Canada case on right to counsel

R v Latimer, [1997] 1 SCR 217, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy. The case involved consideration of arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rights to an explanation for detention and rights to counsel under section 10. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned Latimer's conviction due to the Crown's improper actions at the jury selection stage. As a result, the decision was the first given by the Supreme Court in the Latimer case, the second being R v Latimer on cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter.

Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld two important aspects of the capital sentencing scheme in Arizona—judicial sentencing and the aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved"—as not unconstitutionally vague. The Court overruled the first of these holdings in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). The second of these holdings has yet to be overturned.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Mr. Big is a covert investigation procedure used by undercover police to elicit confessions from suspects in cold cases. Police officers create a fictitious grey area or criminal organization and then seduce the suspect into joining it. They build a relationship with the suspect, gain their confidence, and then enlist their help in a succession of criminal acts for which they are paid. Once the suspect has become enmeshed in the criminal gang they are persuaded to divulge information about their criminal history, usually as a prerequisite for being accepted as a member of the organization.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial. In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court held that it is against due process, a right prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

References

  1. ↑ "Latimer still defends killing daughter". CBC News. 17 February 2011. Retrieved 17 February 2011.
  2. ↑ [1997] 1 SCR 217.
  3. ↑ R. v. Latimer, 1997 CanLII 11316, 121 CCC (3d) 326 (SKQB).
  4. ↑ R. v. Latimer, 1998 CanLII 12388, 131 CCC (3d) 191, 172 Sask R 161 (SK CA).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.