A case that is etched in my mind after the first year of law school is R v Stanley (2018), a case that I studied in property law. Here is a quick summary of the facts: Colten Boushie entered Stanley’s farm in his vehicle. After several exchanges, including Stanley’s son hitting the vehicle and cracking the windshields, warning shots fired in the air with the third hitting Boushie, killing him in the vehicle. Stanley did not invoke the defence of property or self-defence at trial. Instead, words like “trespass” and “home invasion” were used and emphasized throughout the defendant’s pleadings. He was charged for second degree murder but was later acquitted. Boushie was an indigenous man of the Cree Red Pheasant First Nations. In rural Saskatchewan, there is heightened racism towards the indigenous community, especially indigenous men. R v Stanley is a case that shows the need for improvement in the Canadian justice system. It highlights the issue of jury duty. By living in a multi-cultural urban city, I sometimes forget that juries have a high propensity of being diverse in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity with more openness towards the change of the law. Jurors do not leave their identity at the doorstep; they have their biases while sitting in on trial. At trial, the jury was composed of white individuals. With growing anti-Indigenous sentiments at the time of trial, the all-white jury likely possessed a biased perspective of the victim. Here, the onus was on the judge to alert the jury of the charge and the policy surrounding the situation. The justice system has once again failed and deprived indigenous people of their rights in Canada. For instance, at trial, the Crown did not intervene and allowed Boushie’s friends to be mistreated and belittled by accusations made by the defence counsel in R v Stanley. The trial should have focused on whether the third shot was an accident in order for Stanley to be acquitted for murder. Had defence of property been invoked, it would likely fail on the basis of disproportionality - murder in response to trespass hence making Stanley guilty Instead, the defendant based their arguments on ideas of trespassing, painting the young deceased as an “intruder” or “invader”. The improper application of law shows the many barriers to access to justice, ultimately explaining why the decision was not appealed. This case adds to the list of many injustices in the system. How can we claim that indigenous people are on the path towards justice when this case echoes what survivors of residential schools faced in their trials? This case shed light on the ethical issues within the practice of law. Lawyers should not take on a case if they will not be representing their clients effectively. The Farmers’ for Firearms claimed that the laws were insufficient, and people should have the right to defend their property in rural properties. Although it is understandable that the distance in rural areas for the police to cover is huge and response times might be slower than one would hope, that does not mean justice should be taken into the property owner’s hands. There should be limits to self help remedies. Even in a citizen’s arrest, property owners cannot exert undue force. There is a reason why we have laws and enforcers. This case exemplifies the power of lobbying and highlights how our legal system prioritizes property rights over our Charter rights to life, liberty, and security. Specifically, where this law is enacted, there is a history of disproportionate violence towards indigenous peoples. R v Gunning only justified to shoot in the case of self-defence. In R v Stanley, the evidence does not show if it was a matter of self defence or not which may allude to why it wasn’t argued as a defence at trial. Presuming that entry onto private property in rural Saskatchewan is trespass reverses the common law presumption that you can knock on your neighbour’s door rule. Although I understand the basis of the common law presumption, farmers have acres of land and do not want individuals on their property which is a legitimate policy concern. This is another example showing how the law has shifted from the idea that land is a communal resource to the perspective that land is a private commodity and exclusion is crucial to maintain these private interests. In a rural community, people may need each other more than ones in an urban setting. In the case of a flat tire, being lost and losing reception on their phone, or running out of food and being unable to go to the store due to the weather conditions or lack of gas. The indigenous community faces injustices, from the historical implications of treaties to the current forms of systemic racism. It debunks the myth of Canada being an accepting nation - we are truly inclusive from coast to coast. We need to address this issue as law students and lawyers as we are agents of change in the very legal system that shuts indigenous people out. By: Karen Randhawa Comments are closed.
|
Legally BrownThis page is dedicated to providing insights on current events and reflecting on recent legal developments. Archives
January 2021
Categories
All
|