Supreme Court grants rare stay to battered wife
No new trial for attempt to hire hit man
In an “exceptional” move, the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday overturned the acquittal of a woman who tried to hire a hit man to kill her abusive husband but said she will not have to face another trial, citing the injustices she has already suffered.
All the judges said they did not accept the woman’s claim that she had acted under extreme duress when she attempted to take out a contract on her husband’s life. Such a defence can only be used in very limited circumstances, the court said.
But a majority of judges ordered a rare stay of proceedings, saying that it would be unfair to put the woman through another trial.
“The abuse she suffered and the protracted nature of these proceeding(s) have taken an enormous toll on her,” the judges wrote.
“It is an exceptional situation that warrants an exceptional remedy.”
The judges also referred to the “disquieting” fact that the police had failed to respond to the woman’s several calls for help in dealing with her estranged husband’s “reign of terror.”
One dissenting judge, Morris Fish, said it should be up to the Crown to decide whether to hold another trial.
At a press conference in Halifax, Nicole Patricia Ryan, who will not have a criminal record, said she was “relieved” with the ruling and hoped that she can “re-establish my life” and go back to teaching.
While it is heartening to know that Ryan will not have to endure another trial, the future legal landscape remains unclear for other women in similar situations, said Kim Pate, national director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.
“To deny defences to women who are battered and their children is to aid the abuser,” she said.
Ryan was charged in 2008 with counselling to commit murder after she approached an undercover RCMP officer and agreed to pay him $25,000 to kill her husband, Michael.
In court, Ryan claimed she had been under duress and acted out of fear for her life and her child’s life.
Her husband was 6-feet-3 and weighed 230 pounds. She was 5-feet-3 and 115 pounds.
“I have cried, but I never cried during the explosions or the outbursts,” she testified.
“You cannot cry. You cannot show any emotion. You cannot show any feelings. You’re hollow. You’re empty.”
When she brought up the subject of divorce, his response was that he would “destroy” her and their child, she said. Having tried on numerous occasions to get police to intervene, she said she did not believe police would be able to stop her soldier-husband from carrying out his threats.
She told the court she was grateful when police took her into custody because she finally felt safe. “I could breathe,” she said. While two lower courts accepted the woman’s defence that she had acted under duress, Friday’s Supreme Court ruling made it clear that duress can only be used in situations where a person commits a crime in response to a specific threat that they do so.
There has to be a threat of death or bodily harm and “no safe avenue of escape,” the Supreme Court said.
“Undoubtedly there are further issues here that have to be resolved in future cases or perhaps by Parliament,” said Nick Bala, a Queen’s University law professor.