R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 1, 2001 SCC 1 (2001)




Extract


R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 1, 2001 SCC 1 (2001)

R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 1

Robert William Latimer Appellant v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and

The Attorney General of Canada,

the Attorney General for Ontario,

the Canadian Civil Liberties Association,

the Canadian AIDS Society,

the Council of Canadians with Disabilities,

the Saskatchewan Voice of People with Disabilities,

the Canadian Association for Community Living,

People in Equal Participation Inc.,

DAWN Canada: DisAbled Women's Network of Canada,

People First of Canada,

the Catholic Group for Health, Justice and Life,

the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,

the Christian Medical and Dental Society and

Physicians for Life Interveners

Indexed as: R. v. Latimer

Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 1.

File No.: 26980.

2000: June 14; 2001: January 18.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan

Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Cruel and unusual punishment -- Accused convicted of second degree murder after killing his severely disabled daughter -- Criminal Code providing for mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 10 years -- Whether imposition of mandatory minimum sentence for second degree murder constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in this case, so that accused should receive constitutional exemption from minimum sentence -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 12 -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 235, 745(c).

Criminal law - Defences - Defence of necessity - Accused convicted of second degree murder after killing his severely disabled daughter -- Trial judge removing defence of necessity from jury after counsel's closing addresses -- Whether jury should have been allowed to consider defence of necessity - Whether timing of trial judge's ruling as to availability of defence rendered accused's trial unfair.

Criminal law -- Trial -- Jury -- Fairness of trial -- Jury nullification -- Accused convicted of second degree murder following death of his severely disabled daughter -- Whether trial unfair because trial judge misled jury into believing it would have some input into appropriate sentence, thereby lessening chance of jury nullification.

The accused was charged with first degree murder following the death of T, his 12-year-old daughter who had a severe form of cerebral palsy. T was quadriplegic and her physical condition rendered her immobile. She was said to have the mental capacity of a four-month-old baby, and could communicate only by means of facial expressions, laughter and crying. T was completely dependent on others for her care. She suffered five to six seizures daily, and it was thought that she experienced a great deal of pain. She had to be spoon-fed, and her lack of nutrients caused weight loss. There was evidence that T could have been fed with a feeding tube into her stomach, an option that would have improved her nutrition and health, and that might also have allowed for more effective pain medication to be administered, but the accused and his wife rejected this option. After learning that the doctors wished to perform additional surgery, which he perceived as mutilation, the accused decided to take his daughter's life. He carried T to his pickup truck, seated her in the cab, and inserted a hose from the truck's exhaust pipe into the cab. T died from the carbon monoxide. The accused at first maintained that T had simply passed away in her sleep, but later confessed to having taken her life. The accused was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 10 years; the Court of Appeal upheld the accused's conviction and sentence, but this Court ordered a new trial.

During the second trial defence counsel asked the trial judge for a ruling, in advance of his closing submissions, on whether the jury could consider the defence of necessity. The tr...

See the full content of this document


If you are already a vLex customer, access here