Alberta Court of Appeal Rules Against Ex-Mountie

[fredr123]

In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the whacky ruling of Justice Hawco in the Michael Ferguson case. Ferguson, as you will recall, was the RCMP officer accused of killing Varley in his cell in Pincher Creek. Two previous juries hung before one finally convicted him. However, Justice Hawco found the 4-year minimum sentence for manslaughter committed with a firearm to be unconstitutional for Ferguson personally and ordered a lesser sentence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal really had no choice but to uphold the appeal against the sentence. It made no sense. Neither does the reasons of Mr. Justice O'Brien in dissent at the Court of Appeal. Perhaps the court is bending over backwards to go easy on a guy who has been prosecuted three times now for this offence. Perhaps they are trying to compensate for the Crown's insistence on continuing to swing away until they get the result they want (two out of three times there was no conviction).

More here:
Criminalreview.ca
Calgary Sun
Calgary Herald
Full-text of Decision

[moon]

Stupid stupid decision. The guy should not have been convicted in the first place. What a waste of taxpayers money by the crown and I feel sorry for this guy who did nothing wrong but attempt to defend himself from an attacking drunk and has to have he life ruined for years and years because of a vindictive, idiot crown prosecuter.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by moon

Stupid stupid decision. The guy should not have been convicted in the first place. What a waste of taxpayers money by the crown and I feel sorry for this guy who did nothing wrong but attempt to defend himself from an attacking drunk and has to have he life ruined for years and years because of a vindictive, idiot crown prosecuter.

Just curious how you know all this? Funny thing is, if you live in the area where all this happened there seems to be the opposite sentiment: that Ferguson was an ass and deserved to be punished for something even though the evidence might not be there to prove it.

These are the kind of undertones that, I'm afraid, might be influencing some of the judicial decisions coming from this case. I'm quite confident that once the jury finds the accused guilty of manslaughter, the four-year minimum sentence is pretty much an absolute. The law binds the judge's hands pretty tightly on that one. Doesn't mean it's the "correct" decision in the broad sense though...

[moon]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Just curious how you know all this? Funny thing is, if you live in the area where all this happened there seems to be the opposite sentiment: that Ferguson was an ass and deserved to be punished for something even though the evidence might not be there to prove it.

These are the kind of undertones that, I'm afraid, might be influencing some of the judicial decisions coming from this case. I'm quite confident that once the jury finds the accused guilty of manslaughter, the four-year minimum sentence is pretty much an absolute. The law binds the judge's hands pretty tightly on that one. Doesn't mean it's the "correct" decision in the broad sense though...

I live in Lethbridge so not necessarily the area but I have heard plenty of info on the case fromteh newspapers and news. I am not one that normally would take the side of the cop but in this case it seems clear that it was Varley in the wrong and although unfortunate that he died, Ferguson should not be punished and certainly not in the way the Crown dragged it out.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by moon

I live in Lethbridge so not necessarily the area but I have heard plenty of info on the case fromteh newspapers and news. I am not one that normally would take the side of the cop but in this case it seems clear that it was Varley in the wrong and although unfortunate that he died, Ferguson should not be punished and certainly not in the way the Crown dragged it out.

Interesting that you live in Lethbridge. That's not the reaction that I would have expected.

The way the case proceeded is distasteful to me. Ignore the verdict until you get one that you like. It's somewhat of a luxury the Crown has that the defence doesn't and the way things transpired just don't seem fair on some level.

[fredr123]

And the Supreme Court has denied Ferguson's appeal:

HELD: Appeal dismissed. There was no basis for the conclusion that the mandatory four-year minimum sentence was cruel or unusual punishment on the facts of this case. Since there was no s. 12 Charter violation in the circumstances, the trial judge should have imposed the minimum four-year sentence. A constitutional exemption was not an appropriate remedy for a s. 12 Charter violation. Any law imposing a mandatory minimum sentence that was found to be unconstitutional in a given case should have been declared inconsistent with the Charter and held to be of no force or effect.

Full decision here: http://www.lexisnexis.ca/documents/2008scc6.pdf

[burn_this_city]

The mountie had every right to defend himself but the use of lethal force was excessive.. He shot the guy in the stomach then in the head, seems to be a little over the top in my opinion.. I'm all for brutalizing criminals, but use the batton or the pepperspray, you don't have to shoot the guy dead..

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by fredr123

And the Supreme Court has denied Ferguson's appeal:

HELD: Appeal dismissed. There was no basis for the conclusion that the mandatory four-year minimum sentence was cruel or unusual punishment on the facts of this case. Since there was no s. 12 Charter violation in the circumstances, the trial judge should have imposed the minimum four-year sentence. A constitutional exemption was not an appropriate remedy for a s. 12 Charter violation. Any law imposing a mandatory minimum sentence that was found to be unconstitutional in a given case should have been declared inconsistent with the Charter and held to be of no force or effect.

Full decision here: http://www.lexisnexis.ca/documents/2008scc6.pdf

And the SCC has it exactly right. The trial judge's decision amounted to a clear error in law. Given the nature of the charges, and the implications of the possible precedent, the Crown really had no choice but to appeal this.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Just goes to show that mandatory minimum sentences are not unconstitutional.