|
Court quashes convictions
in girl's slaying
By KIRK MAKIN, JUSTICE
REPORTER, Dec. 13, 2003
The Supreme Court of Canada
has overturned homicide convictions against two Quebec men because
the Crown unjustifiably withheld large volumes of important evidence
and the Quebec Court of Appeal later made "numerous errors"
when it reassessed their guilt.
The vital evidence came to
light in 1999, when the Poitras commission into misconduct by
the Sûreté du Québec uncovered it. As a result,
Billy Taillefer and Hugues Duguay immediately challenged their
convictions for the 1990 slaying of 14-year-old Sandra Gaudet.
A jury had found Mr. Taillefer
guilty of first-degree murder. However, Mr. Duguay's situation
was novel. He swore that he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter
despite being totally innocent, lest he go to trial and be convicted
of murder. His former defence lawyers backed up his declaration.
Sandra was killed in Val d'Or
on March 10, 1990, after leaving her family home for the evening.
Her nude body was found in a snowbank days later. Both accused
made highly incriminating statements to police, but later said
the statements were beaten out of them.
The evidence the Poitras commission
turned up raised serious doubts about the location from which
Sandra was abducted, sightings of a car that was said have been
used to transport her body and about screams that were reported
to have been heard that night.
In a unanimous ruling that
bristles with unhappiness, the Supreme Court noted that Quebec
prosecutors "could not have been unaware" that the
evidence they were suppressing was extremely relevant to the
defence.
The court concluded that the
defendants "were the victims of a serious infringement of
their right to disclosure of evidence."
The court granted Mr. Taillefer
a new first-degree murder trial. It took the extraordinary course
of allowing Mr. Duguay to withdraw his plea of guilty to manslaughter,
staying further proceedings on the basis that he has served more
than enough of his 12-year sentence.
"Ordering a new trial
when the accused has already served two thirds of his sentence
and is eligible for parole would contribute to perpetuating an
injustice and would tarnish the integrity of our judicial system,"
the court said.
Yesterday's ruling was a distinct
embarrassment to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which earlier ruled
that the fresh evidence was insufficient to warrant a new trial.
"In short, the Court of
Appeal made a major error when it failed to assess the impact
of the new evidence in the overall fairness of the trial,"
Mr. Justice Louis LeBel said.
The court excused the Crown's
actions, but only to a very limited extent, since the law on
disclosure was still developing at the time.
Judge LeBel laid down rules
for future courts to follow in determining whether fresh evidence
might have led to a different verdict -- or even affected the
way the defence investigated and prepared for trial.
The Crown's duty to disclose
evidence "is triggered whenever there is a reasonable possibility
of the information being useful to the accused in making full
answer and defence," the court said, whether or not the
Crown intends to use it.
Judge LeBel said that to get
a new trial, the accused must show only a reasonable possibility
that the verdict might have been different had the Crown disclosed
all at the time.
In cases where an accused has
pleaded guilty, appellate courts must decide if a reasonable
person might have adopted that course if he knew evidence was
suppressed.
© 2003 Bell Globemedia
Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Top court orders new
trial in killing
Canadian
Press, Friday, December 12, 2003
OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court
of Canada has ordered a new trial for a man who was convicted
in 1991 of killing a teenager in northwestern Quebec.
Besides ruling Friday that
Billy Taillefer should get another trial, the high court ordered
a stay of proceedings against Hughes Duguay, who was convicted
with Taillefer in the death of Sandra Gaudet, 14.
She was sexually assaulted
and strangled in Val-d'Or in 1990.
Duguay spent eight years in
prison and the Supreme Court said putting him through another
trial could affect the integrity of the justice system.
The two men have always insisted
they were innocent and that their confessions were obtained after
16 hours of violent police interrogation.
A Quebec government commission
that examined the work of provincial police after a spectacular
drug case was bungled noted that provincial police officers in
the Taillefer and Duguay case had not turned over all the pertinent
evidence.
© Copyright The Canadian Press
SUPREME COURT
OF CANADA
28899 Billy
Taillefer v. Her Majesty the Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms - Criminal law - Evidence - Disclosure - Right
to make full answer and defence - Admissibility of fresh evidence
- What approach Court of Appeal should take in determining whether
fresh evidence should be admitted when contradictions exist between
version at trial and version contained in fresh evidence - Whether,
on issue of admissibility of fresh evidence, Court of Appeal
erred in imposing burden on Appellant that evidence must prove
or tend to prove his innocence - Whether Court of Appeal, when
dealing with violations of constitutional rights of an accused
must, in the interests of justice, receive the evidence submitted
pursuant to s. 683(1)( d) of the Criminal Code ,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 where the exclusion of such evidence would
cause prejudice to integrity of judicial system and call into
question fairness of trial.
In April 1990, the Appellant,
Billy Taillefer, and Hugues Duguay were charged with first degree
murder in a death that occurred in Val d'Or on March 10, 1990.
On February 1, 1991, they were found guilty by a jury of the
offence as charged and sentenced by the court to life imprisonment
with no possibility of parole for 25 years. The two co-accused
appealed their convictions. On June 12, 1995, the Court of Appeal
dismissed the Appellant's appeal. However, Duguay's appeal was
allowed, and the Court of Appeal ordered that a new trial be
held on the charge of second degree murder.
Because his appeal had been
dismissed, the Appellant brought an application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The application was dismissed
on February 21, 1996. Duguay pleaded guilty to the offence of
manslaughter in August 1995, and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.
In February 1999, while the
Appellant was in custody, he received a letter from Quebec's
Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, and a copy of the report
by the Commission of Inquiry into the Sûreté du
Québec (the "Poitras Commission") and its appendices,
dealing with his case. The report of the Poitras Commission stated
that the Appellant and Duguay did not have access to all of the
relevant information that supported their submissions that they
did not murder Sandra Gaudet.
As the Appellant had exhausted
all available remedies, he applied to the Minister of Justice
under s. 690 of the Criminal Code . On October 16, 2000, the
Minister of Justice referred the Appellant's case to the Court
of Appeal for Quebec for hearing and determination as if it were
an appeal by the Appellant of his conviction. On September 10,
2001, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appelant's appeal.
28903 Hugues
Duguay v. Her Majesty the Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms - Criminal law - Evidence - Disclosure - Right
to make full answer and defence -Withdrawal of guilty plea -
What is burden on accused seeking to withdraw guilty plea when
plea entered in circumstances where Crown fails to comply with
constitutional duty to disclose? - Whether Court of Appeal can
disregard affidavits solely on ground that the deponents did
not testify before the Clerk of Court of Appeal - What standard
should be applied by Court of Appeal to resolve credibility conflicts
between evidence taken at first trial and fresh evidence? - When
considering request to withdraw plea based on non-disclosure
by Crown, whether Court of Appeal can assume guilt of Appellant
in deciding the prejudice to the overall fairness of his trial.
In April 1990, the Appellant,
Hugues Duguay, and Billy Taillefer were charged with first degree
murder in a death that occurred in Val d'Or on March 10, 1990.
On February 1, 1991, they were found guilty by a jury of the
offence as charged and were sentenced by the court to life imprisonment
with no possibility of parole for 25 years. The two co-accused
appealed their convictions. On June 12, 1995, the Court of Appeal
dismissed Taillefer's appeal. However, Duguay's appeal was allowed.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on the charge of second
degree murder on the sole ground that the judge's instructions
with respect to the responsibility of an accomplice in the commission
of a first degree murder did not adhere to s. 231(5) of the Criminal
Code having regard to R. v. Harbottle , [1993] 3 S.C.R. 306.
On August 16, 1995, the Appellant
offered to plead guilty to the offence of manslaughter. With
the consent of the Crown, the trial judge accepted the plea,
found the Appelant guilty and sentenced him to twelve years'
imprisonment.
In February 1999, while the
Appellant was in custody, he received a letter from Quebec's
Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, and a copy of the report
by the Commission of Inquiry into the Sûreté du
Québec (the "Poitras Commission") and its appendices,
dealing with the Appellant's case. The report of the Poitras
Commission stated that the Appellant and Duguay did not have
access to all of the relevant information that supported their
submissions that they were not the murderers.
The Appellant therefore brought
a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal and a motion
for leave to appeal his conviction. The Appellant's motions were
granted. Before the Court of Appeal, the Appellant argued that
the Crown's failure to comply with its duty to disclose led to
a serious violation of his right to make full answer and defence,
and deprived him of the possibility of making an informed choice
when he decided to plead guilty. Accordingly, he asked the Court
of Appeal for leave to withdraw his guilty plea. On September
10, 2001, the Court of Appeal refused to allow the guilty plea
to be withdrawn, and dismissed the appeal.
Origin of the case: Quebec
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
