Based on evidence, verdict not ‘perverse’
Guilt or innocence is decided by law, not the wishes of family or activists
After the not-guilty verdict in the Gerald Stanley murder case, a national debate has ensued over the shooting death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie on the Stanley farm in August 2016.
Marches were held and political meetings convened, claiming the jury verdict was “perverse.” It wasn’t — at least if the trial evidence meant anything.
For the family of Boushie, it is difficult to imagine a more heartbreaking and painful odyssey, the inconsolable grief at losing a young man with his entire life ahead of him.
The rule of law and our Constitution guarantee accused people the right to a fair trial. Guilt or innocence is not decided by the victim’s family, the onlookers or the activists.
Among the many responses, we have even witnessed, for the first time, both a prime minister and minister of Justice implying — inappropriately for politicians — that the jury’s decision was incorrect.
While Boushie and his friends were not on trial, their actions were critically important to the case. On the witness stand, his companions admitted having lied, some of them repeatedly.
The trial evidence also revealed that this case was not about whether protection of farm property trumped a human life.
The case, according to lawyers’ submissions and even the judge’s jury instructions, dealt with something more sinister.
On the fateful day of the shooting, there was vandalism and attempts to steal, both at the Stanley farm and at a neighbour’s. The SUV’s occupants also had a loaded gun with them, and there was copious alcohol consumption, beginning that morning at Boushie’s grandmother’s house, one witness testified.
Boushie’s blood alcohol level was more than three times the legal limit and the SUV driver admitted to drinking 30 shots and intermittently blacking out behind the wheel as he sped down rural roads.
Just as the pain of Boushie’s family is understandable, fair-minded people can appreciate Stanley’s shock and fear for his family when a battered SUV without a muffler and driving on a tire rim came roaring into his yard.
At least one person from the SUV hopped in a truck parked in the yard, and at least one person headed for Stanley’s shop. The SUV began revving and spraying gravel. Someone tried to start Stanley’s nearby all-terrain vehicle.
As this rapidly escalated, the man on the quad jumped back into the SUV. Stanley testified that he believed the SUV headed toward his son, who swung a hammer at the windshield.
Then, as it seemed the SUV was about to speed off the property, it slammed into one of the Stanley family vehicles.
Thinking his wife had been run over by the SUV, Stanley described feeling “pure terror” amid the chaos.
Twelve jurors using their best judgment had to ask themselves if Stanley’s behaviour was “reasonable under the circumstances” for a man trying to repel attackers who had besieged his family.
Under Canadian law, Stanley was justified in firing warning shots in the air. The case ultimately turned on Stanley’s explanation of the gun accidentally firing and killing Boushie.
Whether this version was convincing or a fabrication, the presumption of innocence does not require Stanley to prove his story, but requires the Crown to disprove it.
Many of the jurors may have been skeptical but they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Stanley’s guilt.
The great British jurist Lord Denning spoke often of “justice in the instant case.” In a courtroom, where agendas and politics are stripped aside, we asked a jury to dispense justice.