Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
Ruling makes me sick.
What is happening to our courts? Maybe MBates can provide some insight.
|
I would just say that you always have to remember, you only get a fraction of the evidence in media reports (even good ones).
I had a case once with the following exchange (not using a transcript here but pretty accurate) between me and a lead detective on a homicide case:
Q: So you were upset when the judge told you to just answer the question and you ended up testifying to the opposite of the truth?
A: Yes.
Every single day of the trial was covered fully...that gem never made it to print. By the time I was done, the trial judge found there was absolutely no weight he could place on any testimony the officer gave. It was really easy for me to know why that finding was made...nobody reading the papers would have known.
In this case, the dissent at the ABCA (that was accepted by the SCC and led to the new trial) contained this paragraph:
Quote:
|
On the facts of this case, it cannot be argued that the Stephans were not devoted and loving parents. They did not neglect their 18-month old son’s symptoms when he exhibited them. They did not fail to provide him with what they thought were the necessaries of life. They monitored him closely when he became ill, doing what they believed was best for him. There is no doubt the decisions they made with respect to the well-being of their son turned out to be terribly wrong, but it is not clear that their acts or omissions were criminal in the sense of deserving of punishment for moral blameworthiness.
|
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/do...17abca380.html
The fact there was disagreement between pathologists over the cause of death was itself remarkable. There was also evidence that the child got sick but then got better and then back to sick and back to seeming better.
Many people would have taken their child to hospital sooner no doubt. But that is not the legal test (and for failing to provide the necessaries it is a pretty complicated analysis).
The reality is that if the presumption of innocence is to mean anything, and we actually require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then acquittals (which are indeed not declarations of innocence but a finding the presumption was not displaced) in extremely difficult and disturbing cases actually may be strong indicators that our system is working exactly how it is supposed to.