The actual complaints of the defense seem reasonable. If the jury instruction as the defense alleged did not contain the fact that in order for it to be criminal negligence they had to be not only negligent but also marked departure from what a average person would do in such a circumstance. Failing to provide this explanation is a mistake.
Quote:
|
[108] The facts of this case are very different from most others where failure to provide is charged. The Appellants were attentive, loving parents who were actively attempting to fulfill their parental duties. If their “failure” was not taking Ezekiel to a doctor, it did not stem from eccentric beliefs or a distrust of “modern” medicine as the Crown tried to allege. The evidence establishes ongoing consultations with a medically-trained emergency room nurse as well as an urgent 911 call and a trip to the hospital.242 The Appellants were not trying to hide an injured child because they feared legal repercussions.243 They did not take Ezekiel to a doctor because his symptoms appeared to be mild and consistent with a typical cold or flu. They were told by a medical professional that she could find nothing wrong with him. The determination of whether the Appellants’ conduct represented a marked departure from the standard of the reasonable parent was compromised by a misleading, confusing instruction – an error which was compounded inadmissible and highly prejudicial opinions offered by a number of medical doctors regarding what they would have done. It is the respectful position of the Appellants that a new trial is required.
|
https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-...rt-Stephan.pdf
The judge screwed up, I don't like it as after reading the evidence these people's incompetence led to their child's death and it was a marked departure from the standard of care but the rule of law needs to be followed and having juries of non-experts as the triers of fact requires good instructions so people understand and Make decisions based on the law and not emotions.