Canada: Saskatchewan judge rules sex assault trial reforms passed by Liberal government are unconstitutional - PressFrom - Canada
  •   
  •   
  •   

CanadaSaskatchewan judge rules sex assault trial reforms passed by Liberal government are unconstitutional

07:00  09 august  2019
07:00  09 august  2019 Source:   nationalpost.com

Infrastructure money 'not Ralph Goodale's re-election fund:' Moe

Infrastructure money 'not Ralph Goodale's re-election fund:' Moe REGINA — Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is suggesting the federal government is playing favourites with infrastructure funding to give a boost to Liberal-area member of Parliament Ralph Goodale. The province is in a dispute with Ottawa over how millions in federal infrastructure dollars will flow to projects in different communities. Moe questions why the federal government is focused on funding for two outdoor swimming pools in Goodale's Regina riding when they're not a priority for the province. He says there's a long list of other recreational projects Ottawa could consider.

Liberal government ’s overhaul of sexual assault trial laws, a package of reforms widely seen in the legal community as a response to the Jian Ghomeshi trial . Bill C-51, passed in December 2018, contained numerous sexual assault reforms . But the most controversial one gave complainants the

The federal government has introduced legislation to clarify and expand the sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code, clearing up issues of consent and the use of a complainant’s past sexual history at a trial . It marks the first significant reform to Canada’s sexual assault laws since 1992, when

Saskatchewan judge rules sex assault trial reforms passed by Liberal government are unconstitutional © Darren Calabrese Jian Ghomeshi is escorted by police out of court past members of the media in Toronto on November 26, 2014.

OTTAWA — A Saskatchewan judge has found the Liberal government’s sexual assault trial reforms are unconstitutional because they force defence lawyers to disclose too much of their evidence to the complainant ahead of time, potentially allowing the complainant to modify their testimony in response.

The provincial court decision addresses reforms contained in Bill C-51, which took effect last December. The new legislation gives complainants in sex assault trials the automatic right to make submissions in certain evidence admissibility hearings (at issue in this case were records held by the defendant that were unrelated to prior sexual activity, but in which the complainant had a privacy interest). Because complainants are now a party to these hearings, they are also entitled to disclosure from the defendant.

Boyle trial: Judge throws out expert testimony on hostage trauma

Boyle trial: Judge throws out expert testimony on hostage trauma The judge in the Joshua Boyle trial has thrown out expert testimony that sought to draw parallels between the experience of foreign hostages and victims of domestic abuse. 

After a sexual assault or rape, victims are often subjected to scrutiny and, in some cases, mistreatment. Victims undergo medical examinations and are interviewed by police. If there is a criminal trial , victims suffer a loss of privacy and their credibility may be challenged.

A federal judge who ruled the Selective Service System's men-only registration unconstitutional late Friday rejected the reasoning of a 1981 Supreme Court decision US District Court Judge Gray Miller, based in Houston, spurned the government 's argument about excluding women, based partly on their

“In my opinion, the Crown arguments do not address adequately the effect of disclosure to the complainant that may allow the complainant to prepare for trial ready to explain and minimize inconsistencies, omissions, additions or other modifications in giving their evidence,” Judge Bruce Henning wrote in his decision, which came down on Aug. 1 and is not yet posted online.

“The evidence of a complainant is almost always crucial and central in any trial relating to sexual assault. Mandatory disclosure to the prime witness in a prosecution reaches to the centre and integrity of the trial process in such cases.”

Henning concluded this aspect of C-51 violates section 7 of the Charter (the right to make a full answer and defence) and section 11 (the right to a fair trial), and could not be justified as a reasonable limit. He said the effect of the new law is to “seriously limit an accused person’s ability to effectively challenge the veracity of a complainant.”

Sentence for $41-million fraud upped to three years; mandatory minimum valid

Sentence for $41-million fraud upped to three years; mandatory minimum valid TORONTO — A man who almost defrauded Revenue Canada of more than $40 million had his prison sentence increased on Wednesday but won't have to serve any more time. In a written ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the 18-month term handed to Kevin Plange was far too little for the crime and upped it to three years. "The sentence imposed by the trial judge was demonstrably unfit when compared to other large-scale frauds," the Appeal Court said. "The sentencing judge understated the moral blameworthiness of the respondent." At the same time, the higher court decided that Plange, who has already served the initial sentence, needn't return to prison.

Federal judge in Texas rules Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional . Ruling comes on eve of “Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects The Trump administration weighed in, saying the government would no longer defend some core components of

People accused of sexual assault in Ontario are once again allowed to use excessive intoxication as a defence against criminal charges, a judge has ruled , finding that a federal law preventing such an argument is unconstitutional . Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies’ ruling relates to a Supreme

Saskatchewan judge rules sex assault trial reforms passed by Liberal government are unconstitutional © Dave Abel/Toronto Sun/QMI Agency Jian Ghomeshi leaves College Park Courts with his lawyer Marie Heinen on Wednesday November 26, 2014.

The case, called R. v. A.M., is being heard in a lower provincial court, so the ruling only affects the law as applied in this case and is not binding on other courts. It stands in contrast to two recent Ontario cases where judges upheld the constitutionality of C-51 (though Henning points out the issues were slightly different in those cases). The constitutionality of the law across the country won’t be settled until a case is appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The 2016 trial of Jian Ghomeshi looms large in Henning’s reasons. Many defence lawyers see C-51 as a reaction to the blockbuster Ghomeshi trial, which saw Ghomeshi’s lawyers expose major inconsistencies in the complainants’ testimony during cross-examination. Henning refers to the Ghomeshi case multiple times, saying it “dramatically illustrates the value of cross-examination.”

State of mind to be key issue in Alek Minassian trial, judge says

State of mind to be key issue in Alek Minassian trial, judge says TORONTO — The trial of a man accused of killing ten people in a deadly Toronto van attack will turn on his state of mind at the time, not whether he was behind the wheel, a judge said Friday. 

The federal government says the update reflects a Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of R "It's never been acceptable to have sex with someone who's unconscious," said sexual assault He worries that will put people standing trial for sexual assault at an unfair disadvantage and may

The federal Liberal government has thrown its support behind a bill, currently before the Senate, that would require judges to take courses in sexual assault law. Bill C-337 would also limit judicial appointments to those who have completed comprehensive education in sexual assault law and

In his brief to the Saskatchewan court, defence lawyer John Williams calls C-51 “an apparent reaction by Parliament to the (Ghomeshi) verdict.” He says the judge’s reasons in the Ghomeshi case “give credence to the view that, had the complainants been apprised in advance of what was coming, the cross-examination almost certainly would not have produced the evidence that ultimately resulted in Mr. Ghomeshi’s acquittal.”

The Crown argued that C-51 was not a response to Ghomeshi, but to earlier Supreme Court of Canada decisions in R. v. Shearing and R. v. Mills, which addressed how records can be used in sex assault trials. But Henning expressed some skepticism towards this, and rejected arguments from Crown counsel that C-51 was simply an incremental change from existing laws that governed the use of third-party records.

“No previous legislation made the complainant a party to a hearing with notice of all records or questioning disclosed to the complainant,” he wrote. “The minimization in considering these provisions is not helpful in determining the complex effects and validity of this legislation.”

Appeal court orders retrial of HIV-positive Ottawa man convicted of attempted murder

Appeal court orders retrial of HIV-positive Ottawa man convicted of attempted murder Ontario's Court of Appeal has quashed three convictions and ordered the retrial of an Ottawa man who was convicted of attempted murder in 2012 after failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to sex partners.

A federal judge in Texas has declared that an all-male military draft is unconstitutional , ruling that "the time has passed " for a debate on whether women belong in the military. The decision deals the biggest legal blow to the Selective Service System since the Supreme Court upheld the draft

The Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 concerned seven men living on Pitcairn Island who faced 55 charges relating to sexual offences against children and young people.

Henning wrote that there are already “legislative safeguards” to protect the rights of complainants during sexual assault trials, particularly when it comes to preventing improper lines of questioning about a complainant’s sexual history (including the “twin myths” that sexual history means the complainant should be less likely to be believed, or was more likely to have consented to the acts in question).

“The social value of eliminating them cannot be overstated, nor the need to limit examination on material with a high privacy interest which could deter legitimate complaints from coming forward if not regulated,” Henning wrote. But he said such limits on cross-examination are already well established.

In an email on Thursday, Williams — the defence lawyer in the case — said the decision “affirms the fundamental importance of an accused’s right to a full cross-examination of a complainant, without unwarranted constraints.”

“In short, challenging the credibility of the Crown’s principal witness in cross examination becomes exceedingly difficult when you have to explain to that witness in advance how you propose to make that challenge,” Williams wrote. “The Supreme Court has noted that full cross-examination may be the only tool an accused has to challenge the truthfulness of his accuser. The court in A.M. recognized that these provisions would have blunted that tool.”

• Email: [email protected] | Twitter: btaplatt

Sask. Party loyalists behind billboards targeting Liberal MPs across country.
What started as a billboard campaign asking voters to oust Liberal MP Ralph Goodale in Regina has expanded to target Liberal MPs throughout Canada, with its latest focus being battleground ridings in Ontario. WestWatch is a campaign launched this spring by the Canada Growth Council (CGC), a non-profit Political Action Committee (PAC) incorporated in January and based in Regina. The campaign recently appeared in Alberta targeting Edmonton Liberal MPs Amarjeet Sohi and Randy Bossionnault and Calgary MP Kent Hehr. Billboards in Winnipeg focused on Liberal MPs there will be up soon.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 6
This is interesting!