A series of cases occupying the country’s highest courts has cast a
spotlight on Crown attempts to probe the personal backgrounds of
prospective jurors, potentially undermining the sanctity of the jury
system.
With the Supreme Court of Canada still deliberating over
three cases involving such jury vetting, the Ontario Court of Appeal has
wrapped up a week of appeals that also included a look into whether the
jury system treats aboriginals unfairly.
The most contentious case involves a 2007 murder trial in Barrie, Ont.,
where the Crown was privy to private, background information about the
mental health, age and driving records of many of the 280 citizens in
the jury pool. The defendant, Clare Alexander Spiers, is appealing his
conviction on the basis that the background checks stacked the odds
against him.
Read on...
Your resource for news, research, opinion and comment in the world of Criminology and Criminal Justice, brought to you by the Criminology Library, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
Showing posts with label Ontario Court of Appeal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario Court of Appeal. Show all posts
Judge not obliged to view disturbing evidence before sentencing offender, court rules
Ontario’s highest court has split over the question of whether a judge is obliged to view highly disturbing evidence before sentencing an offender.
The 2-1 split in favour of allowing a judge to avoid a full viewing of the evidence sets up the distinct possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The evidence in the case took the form of explicit videotape of a man sexually assaulting his daughter while she begged him to stop.
Ontario Court Judge Stephen J. Hunter declined to watch a compilation of several videos taken by the defendant. He said that he could well imagine what the tape depicted, given his 20 years on the bench and 15 years as a lawyer for a children’s aid society in Eastern Ontario.
“I have seen and been exposed to significant examples of the type of behaviour here,” Judge Hunter said.
Prostitution: Ontario court gives OK to brothels
The federal government was reviewing its legal options Monday after Ontario's top court swept aside some of the country's anti-prostitution laws, saying they place unconstitutional restrictions on prostitutes' ability to protect themselves.
"As the prime minister has said, prostitution is bad for society and harmful to communities, women and vulnerable persons," said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson in a statement emailed to Postmedia News. "We are reviewing the decision and our legal options. The Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed the validity of the ban on solicitation for the purposes of selling sex. We continue to see a social need for laws to control prostitution and its effects on society."
The landmark decision means sex workers in Ontario will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff and work indoors in organized brothels or "bawdy houses," while "exploitation" by pimps remains illegal. However, openly soliciting customers on the street remains prohibited, with the judges deeming that "a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression."
Lawyers fiddle while prostitution laws burn
A prostitute walks with an unidentified male down Toronto's Carlton St. near Jarvis.
If some current or former sex workers tell us that prostitution as they have lived it is abusive, does that mean the current laws should be upheld?
This week a high-powered five-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal is hearing the government’s defence of the prostitution laws. The three main laws ban “communication” in any public place for the purpose of prostitution, “living on the avails” (which criminalizes getting security or other help) and “bawdy houses.” These laws were struck down as unconstitutional by Ontario Superior Court Judge Susan Himel in October.
To counter Himel’s tightly reasoned judgment, the federal government’s lawyer, Michael Morris, introduced affidavits from former sex workers who have been victimized. Upholding the Himel decision would legalize this violence, he claimed.
Mariana Valverde, the author of this piece, is the Director of The Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies. Tom
Stay extended, prostitution laws remain in effect
Terri-Jean Bedford claps with her riding crop at an informal press conference in September 2010.
Laws criminalizing prostitution in Ontario will remain in place until at least until April 29, 2011.
Justice Marc Rosenberg released his ruling this morning, saying he will extend the stay on a landmark decision that would have allowed sex workers to hire bodyguards and communicate freely to sell services.
Rosenberg suggested that the appeal should be heard before the April 29 deadline.
Lawyer Alan Young, who represents dominatrix Terri Jean Bedford, said the judge was concerned with the regulatory void, meaning the lack of laws to regulate the industry.
Last week, lawyers from Ottawa and Queen’s Park argued that the Ontario Court of Appeal should extend the stay on a landmark decision that would have effectively decriminalized prostitution in the province.
Prostitution ruling: Let Parliament debate the issue
Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel laboured for a year over her landmark decision quashing Canada’s prostitution laws. Still, her verdict this week is but a lone voice that will not be the last word on the issue. Nor should it be.
The federal government indicated Wednesday that it will appeal. A legal appeal was the appropriate response the morning after. But even the Supreme Court should not have the last word on this issue.
The social and public policy arguments for and against decriminalization are far too complex to be off-loaded onto the courts (which get relatively little public input or publicity). Doing so would deprive ordinary Canadians and their elected representatives of the right to be heard on an issue affecting people and neighbourhoods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)