R. v. Latimer
| R v Latimer | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: June 14, 2000 Judgment: January 18, 2001 |
|
| Full case name | Robert William Latimer v Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations | [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 2001 SCC 1 (CanLII); (2001), 193 D.L.R. (4th) 577; [2001] 6 W.W.R. 409; (2001), 150 C.C.C. (3d) 129; (2001), 39 C.R. (5th) 1; (2001), 80 C.R.R. (2d) 189; (2001), 203 Sask. R. 1 |
| Prior history | Judgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan |
| Ruling | Conviction and prison sentence upheld |
| Holding | |
| The ten-year minimum sentence in this case did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the fairness of the trial was not compromised by the lateness of the decision on whether the jury could consider the defence of necessity. | |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | The Court |
| Bastarache and Lebel JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
R v Latimer [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy Latimer. The case had sparked an intense national debate as to the ethics of what was claimed as a mercy killing. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Latimer was not cruel and unusual and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court also ruled that Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist. The prison sentence was thus upheld, although the Court specifically noted that the federal government had the power to pardon him.
The Supreme Court described the background this way: Robert Latimer's daughter, Tracy Latimer, was 12 years old and had cerebral palsy. As a result, she was quadriplegic, could not speak, and had the mental abilities of an infant. However, she was not dying of her disability. It was also believed that a feeding tube could help her health, but her parents believed such a medical device would be "intrusive." Thus, numerous surgeries were performed, and after the scheduling of another surgery in 1993, her father, who viewed the upcoming operation as also being cruel, "formed the view that his daughter's life was not worth living." He proceeded to poison her with carbon monoxide. When the police made the discovery, Latimer denied responsibility but later admitted that he had killed her. He was convicted of second degree murder, but in R. v. Latimer (1997) the Supreme Court overturned that finding due to the Crown's improper actions at the jury selection stage.
...
Wikipedia