A criminal lawyer says self-defence provisions in Canadian law are robust, despite second-degree murder charges levied last month on an Ontario man who shot a home intruder trying to commit robbery,
Ali Mian, 22, of Milton, was charged with second degree murder for shooting one of five intruders intent on robbery who entered his home and that of his mother. The incident happened at 5 am, February 19.
Alexander Amoroso-Leacock (21) of Toronto died.Romario Clarke (20) of Oshawa was charged by for break and enter and one count of Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm. Three suspects remain at large.
Section 25of the Criminal Code says private individuals and peace officers who administer or enforce the law are “justified…in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.”
BC criminal lawyer Karen Bastow has defended those facing charges in situations of self-defence. In an interview with the Western Standard, she said she believes self-defence deserves a wide legal latitude.
“Generally, to succeed with self-defence arguments, you must show that you used no more force than was necessary to defend yourself or another person from imminent attack. However, in recent years that analysis has been contextualized to include a significant subjective component and therefore how the accused 'feels' about the threat, given who he is and his personal subjective nature, influences the analysis. This is especially applicable in jury trials, as juries are sympathetic to self-defence,” Bastow said.
“I’m in favour of a wide and liberal reading of the law of self defence…You can't expect someone facing a threat of violence, to respond with the niceties of restraint. They don't know how serious the violence is going to be. And they sometimes have to respond decisively in order to defend themselves,” Bastow said.
In 2013, the Harper Conservative government passed Bill C-26 the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act to clarify legal principles of self-defence.
The bill amended Section 34 of the Criminal Code to read, “A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.”
The bill was positive but controversial legislation in Bastow’s view.
“The legislative changes in 2013 were met with a lot of opposition. The left liberal wing were very opposed, but the reality is that that new codification of our law of self defence was a good change. It simplified the law, which was very complex,” she explained.
Murder trials hinging on a self-defence argument are almost always heard by juries, not judges, Bastow said, a fact that has contributed to a body of sensible case law.
The law of self defence is being shaped by a jury of your peers, more than probably any other area of the law. And for that reason, the law has developed in the last 20 years in a common-sense kind of way,” Bastow said.
“Judges are going to have a different view of self defence than most of my clients who come from a tougher background and have a better sense of what's going on.”
A Halifax resident who fatally stabbed a home intruder in December was not charged by police. Bastow, who has practiced criminal defence since 1998, said the attention given firearms versus knives may be one reason police pressed charges in Ontario.
“I do agree that where there is a dead body and self-defence arises on the facts, the police and prosecutors prefer to leave it to the courts to sort it out,” Bastow said.
Lee Harding is the Senior Saskatchewan Contributor for the Western Standard and Saskatchewan Standard based in the Regina Bureau.
He has served as the Saskatchewan Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
I have to agree with everyone. The right to self defense is a natural right and government has no right to limit it.
When an intruder wilfully enters your home, they made a choice and they abandon any rights.
To ask a citizen minding their own business to interpret the intent of an intruder is patently absurd. All protection personally deemed necessary is fair game.
It is interesting that you chose to interview a lawyer from the only jurisdiction in Canada where counsel must pronounce their pronouns in Court before speaking.
Of course the lawyer is going to say that. He gets paid off all these ridiculous charges that get levied. If we had clear cut laws around self defense he would be out of a job. Lol
An absolute right to defend self or persons nust be very clearly defined. And no charges should be laid until a very good case is made that it was excessive given the circumstances.
When it's dark, you think there might be multiple assailants, you can't tell what they might be bringing for weapons, you have to assume deadly intent and react.
Trying to estimate threat level in the meantime will just get you killed. So you need to be ready. But as soon as you take any defensive action you are likely to be arrested, forced to burn your life savings in court system. To me, this is the police and government making you the victim of a second crime.
They'll take you and your guns away regardless how obviously the defense of life appears to be. The victim of a break in / attack is the guilty party and his/her life is ruined even if the charges are withdrawn by legal costs caused by legal defence from the charges.
Defense?
Sure you can grab a knife but the attackers probably have better. And more. Good luck with that.
And a handgun locked in a safe with a trigger lock and the ammunition in a separate location and locked is not protection.
A rifle is a non starter. It carries several times the energy and can exit through your walls and through both sides of your neighbor's house as well and further.
There's nothing realistic about what the law permits in your defense of your life. All of it simply prevents effective defense and you're just supposed to acquiesce and accept that too bad, so sad, you lose.
And police? They aren't on scene in the critical moments, are they? The reason there's a word "murder" is because the police can't suddenly appear at the right place in time to save you. All they can do, usually, is try (often unsuccessfully) to find out who murdered you and even then try (also often unsuccessfully) to put them behind bars for the crime. But... you've already suffered the ultimate consequence.
Self defense in Alberta and Canada is a myth. The attackers have the upper hand from the second they arrive. And if you defend yourself, you are doomed from the second they arrive.
And many people do not accept that this is the best we get for permission to defend one's self, other occupants, and property. Saying self defense laws are adequate is just plain myopia. Gross stupidity.
And these laws are made by people who DO have armed protection.
The obvious solution is granting law-abiding Canadians the right to protect their property in whatever fashion they deem necessary at the time. When you’re awakened from a deep sleep in the middle of the night you may assess the threat to be greater than a judge sitting in a well-lit court room protected by armed guards. I would agree with the assessment of the property owner in that situation. If his decision is to use lethal force, so be it. If his aim is true, that will ensure one less repeat offender. Good riddance.
By virtue of remaining silent on the subject, the Criminal Code lays all responsibility and onus on the 'victim' to justify their actions. Regardless of what instrument is used, from an old vase to a shotgun, the minimum charges would still be assault with a weapon related. Firearms seizures to follow.
The only positive is that, financially ruined and subject of much maligning and criticism from the myopic msm/legacy and social media, you, (the 'victim/accused'), will be alive to face the judge.
Our self defence laws are not adequate! This criminal lawyer is a woke globalist puppet! This piece of $h!t probably get the worst of the worst set free! If I feel myself, my family or my property is threatened I should have the right to shoot period!
The defense counsel failed to take into account a key point; The option to lay charges does not consider vagaries of the perspectives of the local police or crown prosecutors. This results in uneven and varying interpretations of the law and what they justice officials consider 'the public interest'. Case law is only one factor and even then initial charges may still be laid.
There are many factors, even location is critical - does a rural residence where police response if delayed over a denser urban area constitute a mitigating factor?
The upshot is that regardless of the circumstances of the incident, a charge, (usually multiple - appears to assist with plea bargaining), may be laid without regard to the costs to the alleged assailant (victim?). The financial and even social costs can be ruinous - especially at a jury trial - all for the act of self defense and even if found not guilty, none of the costs will be recovered. The crown, (indifferent to or counting on the costs as an incentive to a plea bargain?) and the defense all receive payment.
Perhaps in such instances, traditional prosecutorial immunity may be considered less absolute and a section may be amended for ease of cost recovery from the crown where it is apparent that any allegation of guilt was very questionable.
Five guys with weapons break into Ali Mian home where he lives with his mother. Ali, law abiding gun owner (he was never charged with a weapons offense) protects his mother. He get charged with murder.
Clearly the Self-defence laws in this country need still to be better spelled out.
The vagueness of the laws is benefitting the lawyers.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(12) comments
I have to agree with everyone. The right to self defense is a natural right and government has no right to limit it.
When an intruder wilfully enters your home, they made a choice and they abandon any rights.
To ask a citizen minding their own business to interpret the intent of an intruder is patently absurd. All protection personally deemed necessary is fair game.
It is interesting that you chose to interview a lawyer from the only jurisdiction in Canada where counsel must pronounce their pronouns in Court before speaking.
The criminal lawyer is wrong and quite possibly a moron.
Of course the lawyer is going to say that. He gets paid off all these ridiculous charges that get levied. If we had clear cut laws around self defense he would be out of a job. Lol
An absolute right to defend self or persons nust be very clearly defined. And no charges should be laid until a very good case is made that it was excessive given the circumstances.
When it's dark, you think there might be multiple assailants, you can't tell what they might be bringing for weapons, you have to assume deadly intent and react.
Trying to estimate threat level in the meantime will just get you killed. So you need to be ready. But as soon as you take any defensive action you are likely to be arrested, forced to burn your life savings in court system. To me, this is the police and government making you the victim of a second crime.
They'll take you and your guns away regardless how obviously the defense of life appears to be. The victim of a break in / attack is the guilty party and his/her life is ruined even if the charges are withdrawn by legal costs caused by legal defence from the charges.
Defense?
Sure you can grab a knife but the attackers probably have better. And more. Good luck with that.
And a handgun locked in a safe with a trigger lock and the ammunition in a separate location and locked is not protection.
A rifle is a non starter. It carries several times the energy and can exit through your walls and through both sides of your neighbor's house as well and further.
There's nothing realistic about what the law permits in your defense of your life. All of it simply prevents effective defense and you're just supposed to acquiesce and accept that too bad, so sad, you lose.
And police? They aren't on scene in the critical moments, are they? The reason there's a word "murder" is because the police can't suddenly appear at the right place in time to save you. All they can do, usually, is try (often unsuccessfully) to find out who murdered you and even then try (also often unsuccessfully) to put them behind bars for the crime. But... you've already suffered the ultimate consequence.
Self defense in Alberta and Canada is a myth. The attackers have the upper hand from the second they arrive. And if you defend yourself, you are doomed from the second they arrive.
And many people do not accept that this is the best we get for permission to defend one's self, other occupants, and property. Saying self defense laws are adequate is just plain myopia. Gross stupidity.
And these laws are made by people who DO have armed protection.
The obvious solution is granting law-abiding Canadians the right to protect their property in whatever fashion they deem necessary at the time. When you’re awakened from a deep sleep in the middle of the night you may assess the threat to be greater than a judge sitting in a well-lit court room protected by armed guards. I would agree with the assessment of the property owner in that situation. If his decision is to use lethal force, so be it. If his aim is true, that will ensure one less repeat offender. Good riddance.
F. Tinning-I think you have stated the case for concealed carry very well. Thank you.
By virtue of remaining silent on the subject, the Criminal Code lays all responsibility and onus on the 'victim' to justify their actions. Regardless of what instrument is used, from an old vase to a shotgun, the minimum charges would still be assault with a weapon related. Firearms seizures to follow.
The only positive is that, financially ruined and subject of much maligning and criticism from the myopic msm/legacy and social media, you, (the 'victim/accused'), will be alive to face the judge.
Our self defence laws are not adequate! This criminal lawyer is a woke globalist puppet! This piece of $h!t probably get the worst of the worst set free! If I feel myself, my family or my property is threatened I should have the right to shoot period!
The defense counsel failed to take into account a key point; The option to lay charges does not consider vagaries of the perspectives of the local police or crown prosecutors. This results in uneven and varying interpretations of the law and what they justice officials consider 'the public interest'. Case law is only one factor and even then initial charges may still be laid.
There are many factors, even location is critical - does a rural residence where police response if delayed over a denser urban area constitute a mitigating factor?
The upshot is that regardless of the circumstances of the incident, a charge, (usually multiple - appears to assist with plea bargaining), may be laid without regard to the costs to the alleged assailant (victim?). The financial and even social costs can be ruinous - especially at a jury trial - all for the act of self defense and even if found not guilty, none of the costs will be recovered. The crown, (indifferent to or counting on the costs as an incentive to a plea bargain?) and the defense all receive payment.
Perhaps in such instances, traditional prosecutorial immunity may be considered less absolute and a section may be amended for ease of cost recovery from the crown where it is apparent that any allegation of guilt was very questionable.
Five guys with weapons break into Ali Mian home where he lives with his mother. Ali, law abiding gun owner (he was never charged with a weapons offense) protects his mother. He get charged with murder.
Clearly the Self-defence laws in this country need still to be better spelled out.
The vagueness of the laws is benefitting the lawyers.
Follow the money, Its lawyers too that write these laws.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.