Canada's top court ponders the importance of location in gun crimes Quote:
OTTAWA - If an intruder leaves his gun in the getaway car during a home invasion, should he still be convicted of a firearms offence?
It's a question the Supreme Court of Canada will pronounce on today after British Columbia's top court ruled that the crime of "use of a firearm," which carries an automatic jail term of one year, should include situations in which the weapon is nearby, although not directly in hand.
The appeal comes at a time when the federal Conservative government is proposing to increase minimum mandatory prison terms for gun-related crimes.
The timing prompted lawyers for the convicted intruder, Andre Steele, 26, to caution the Supreme Court to proceed with care.
"There is simply no basis in fact or law to conclude that the firearm later found in the vehicle was 'used' in the commission of the break and enter," lawyers Phillip Rankin and Brent Olthuis said in a written summary of their arguments. "There was no finding that the firearm was present in the home."
In a mistaken belief that a Pitt Meadows, B.C., home contained a marijuana grow operation, four young intruders kicked in the front door late one night in October 2003.
One of the home invaders threatened the three residents with a gun, although the family members did not see a weapon. Police later stopped a Pontiac Grand Am matching the family's description of the getaway car, with four people inside. Hammers, a crowbar, a kitchen knife, a machete, a silver knife with brass knuckles, and a loaded illegal pistol were found in the car.
In convicting three of the would-be thieves of several crimes, the trial judge ruled that there was a "reasonable inference" that they had a gun with them when they broke into the house.
Steele, sentenced to four years in jail, appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The court determined that even though no gun was taken in the house, the intruders referred to it to threaten their victims. Moreover, the weapon was close enough for to be quickly retrieved.
In its ruling, the court plugged a hole in the existing law by stating that the use of a firearm can include "proximity for future use."
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Steele took the matter to Canada's highest court. His lawyers argued that using a firearm requires "more than passive presence" of a gun and that any doubt in Parliament's intention should work in favour of accused people whose liberty is at stake.
"There are no cases, other than the instant case, where a court has entered a conviction...in the absence of finding that a person was in fact armed with a firearm," Steele's submission argued.
The B.C. government, however, urged the judges to stand firm, in order to encourage prospective thieves who "set forth on violent criminal ventures to leave their guns at home."
"A gun does not need to be produced to be used to facilitate the commission of an offence," the provincial government's court brief argued. "They can be used, whether loaded and operable or not, to intimidate and overbear the will of others, even if not produced."
|
I figured this little tid bit of news from Canada, will shed some light as to how our laws differ on firearms, compared to those in the US.....
This isn't to start a "Who's right / wrong" debate.... it's just to express some of the differences of how the two countries view firearms and how they are treated by the law.
Personally, what do you think about this new idea of what's stated above in the news article? I imagine those in the US, where you have the right to carry a firearm, will have a different opinion on the matter, compared to those in Canada, or elsewhere, and vise versa.
To me, it makes sense.... a firearm is not a tool for intemidation, it's a weapon designed to kill. If you plan on bringing a gun with you to commit a crime, what else are you planning to use it for but for scare tatics or to kill.... if you want to scare someone, there are many other ways to scare someone besides pointing a gun in their face.
Apr 27, 2007, 11:23 am
