Demaître, Labrie and Harding acquitted in Lac Mégantic trial
On its ninth day of jury deliberations, the criminal negligence trial of former Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway employees Jean Demaître, Richard Labrie, and Thomas Harding ended with the acquittal of all three. The news came as a relief to the accused, as it marked the end of a four and a half year long chapter in the lives of the operations manager, rail traffic controller, and locomotive engineer who were on the job the night of the Lac-mégantic rail disaster.
“It was hard, and it was long, but now it is over,” said Labrie following the delivery of the verdicts, reading from a prepared statement with tears in his eyes. “I hope we can all turn the page.”
The former rail traffic controller shared a sense of great relief at the outcome and expressed great thanks to both his lawyers, and the people of Lacmégantic who showed great support for him and his fellow accused.
“The people of Mégantic showed great courage and resilience, and I thank them,” Labrie said. “To the 47 victims, and to all the people of Mégantic, I hope that you have the answers you sought with this result.”
Harding’s lawyer, Thomas Walsh, said his client was too overcome following the news to speak with the media, but he shared that the former engineer is relieved and happy to turn the page.
“It was a just verdict, Walsh said, noting that although the trial was long, it served, in his opinion, as proof that a trial before a jury is an important part of the democratic system. “We’re very satisfied.” He added
Walsh repeated a feeling shared by the defence throughout the proceedings, namely that this trial was focused on three individuals when it should have taken a more global look at the entire context.
“There Should have been a public enquiry,” the lawyer said, arguing that this trial didn’t necessarily serve the public interest.
The charges against the three men stemmed from the train derailment and explosion on the night of July 6, 2013, when an MMA train loaded with 73 cars of crude oil ran away and derailed in downtown Lac-mégantic, resulting in the death of 47 people and the destruction of a large section of the town. The trial begin in early October, and evidence was presented until just before Christmas, when closing arguments were delayed until the new year to prevent the jury from having to be sequestered over the holiday season.
The trial was acknowledged by all involved to be a complex one, not just because of the fact that the legal terminology involved and the evidence presented was complex, but also because the jury was being asked to deliver separate verdicts for each of the accused. Although the crown brought forward more than 30 witnesses to testify over the course of the three months, the defence teams of the three accused ultimately opted not to testify on the premise that the prosecution had failed to offer sufficient proof.
Following Friday’s verdict, members of the prosecution team acknowledged that Criminal Negligence, the most serious negligence charge in the Quebec criminal code, is one of the more difficult legal concepts to prove.
The eight men and four women of the jury were reminded, prior to the start of their deliberations, that in order to be found guilty of criminal negligence, each of Demaître, Labrie and Harding would have to have shown a marked and significant departure from what a reasonable person in the same position might be expected to do, to the point of showing a wanton or reckless disregard for others’ safety.
Deliberations began on January 11 and proceeded through the weekend before the jury surfaced on Monday asking for clarification on several legal terms and concepts, including what constitutes a reasonable person, and what defines “reasonable doubt.”
The jury returned the following day saying that they had reached an impasse but were sent back to their deliberations by Quebec Superior Court Justice Gaetan Dumas, who pointed out that deadlocked juries often come to a just conclusion given a little bit more time and the willingness to listen to each others’ positions.
Two days then passed with no word from the jurors before they returned to the courtroom asking a further clarification, this time on the concept of differentiating between gestures, actions, or decisions made by the accused, and those that might have been made by another employee with the same duties in the same situation.
In response to this question, Justice Dumas reiterated the severity of the charge, asking the questions, “Did the accused omit to do anything that it is his duty to do?” and “Did the accused show a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others?”
Ultimately, however, he pointed out to the jurors that the question they had asked for guidance on was one of the core questions they themselves had to answer.
“I cannot tell you what a reasonable person would have done in the place of the accused; this is one of the questions you must answer,” the judge said, “In fact the question is did the crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of the accused constitutes a marked and substantial departure from the norm?”
The jury was back with the verdicts within an hour.
Looking ahead, Walsh pointed out that the three all still face Federal crown charges regarding nonconformity with the rules, but he expressed little concern over the concept, arguing instead that lots of people and institutions are partially responsible for what happened in Lac-mégantic.
“The safety culture that existed and which Transport Canada allowed to exist by not checking up on it and not doing their homework was, in a great part, contributory to the tragedy,” Walsh said.