tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4338274291395134766.post2315553074200107738..comments2023-10-17T06:20:27.950-04:00Comments on Clément Fortin: JACQUES HÉBERT, UN HOMME D'HONNEUR PAR JACQUES SAUMUREClément Fortinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09010500186495242932noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4338274291395134766.post-64984145265067357492008-09-26T10:11:00.000-04:002008-09-26T10:11:00.000-04:00Me Fortin :Félicitations pour cette très solide ré...Me Fortin :<BR/>Félicitations pour cette très solide réponse à on devine qui...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4338274291395134766.post-73125665792767732142008-09-24T19:57:00.000-04:002008-09-24T19:57:00.000-04:00You are right sir. This question has been raised s...You are right sir. This question has been raised several times on this blog. Obviously, not all people are knowledgeable of the subtleties of the law. Here is an explanation I posted on March <BR/>26th, last.<BR/>"I just received a stack of criminal law books from my bar library. Here is the criminal law that was applicable when Coffin trial was heard in 1953 and 1954. Since our criminal law draws its origin from England, I quote briefly what happened in that country on this same subject. It has since been amended but I think it will suffice to quote from the ANNOTATED CRIMINAL CODE of a well-known jurist in Montréal the following: (which I have translated for your understanding) <BR/>From Irénée Lagarde, Droit pénal canadien, Wilson & Lafleur, Montréal, 1962, page 767<BR/>Section 499. (Only one count of indictment in case of murder) No count of indictment imputing an offence other than a murder may be joined in the same bill of indictment to a count of indictment for murder.<BR/>In England, it was – until 1957 – a rule of practice that a person accused of two murders should have two separate trials (R. v. Davis, 1926, 26 Cr. App. R. 95) But in 1957, with section 6 (2) of the Homicide Act, 1957, it was stipulated that no rule of practice would prevent to indict, in the same bill of indictment but on separate counts, two or several murders unless the president of the tribunal deems in the interest of justice that the accused should have two separate trials.<BR/>I also quote From Irénée Lagarde, Supplément du droit pénal canadien, Wilson & Lafleur, Montréal, 1967, pages 259 and 260 the following : (which I have also translated for your understanding)<BR/><BR/>SECTION 499<BR/>INDICTMENT FOR MURDER<BR/>R V. HAASE, (1965) 45 C.R. 113, 2 C.C.C. 56, C.A., British Columbia.<BR/>I is generally inopportune to join in the same bill of indictment two counts of murder. But the code allows to do so since section 499 only prohibits the junction of a count of murder and a count of an offence other than a murder. It is up to the discretionary power of the court to decide whether to examine the two counts or to ordain that a separate trial be held on each one of them.<BR/><BR/>Here is another quote from Irénée Lagarde’s Annotated Criminal Code, Droit pénal canadien, Vol. 2, 2e edition, Wilson & Lafleur, Montréal, pages 1342-1343:<BR/><BR/>SECTION 518 (THE NUMBER HAS CHANGED FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE)<BR/>518. (Only one count of indictment in case of murder) No count of indictment imputing an offence other than a murder may be joined in the same bill of indictment to a count of indictment for murder.<BR/>Origin: sect. 626 (1892); sect. 856, in part (1906, 1927;) sect. 499, Ch. 51 S.C. (1953-54)<BR/><BR/>In the case of Wilbert Coffin, the Crown chose to indict him for the murder of only one hunter."Clément Fortinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09010500186495242932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4338274291395134766.post-10356860759562498992008-09-24T18:26:00.000-04:002008-09-24T18:26:00.000-04:00wilbert coffin was accused and tried of killing on...wilbert coffin was accused and tried of killing one hunter, not three...why is it this is never reported correctly... this makes me understand why so many details of this case is messed up...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4338274291395134766.post-3480974692296802162008-09-21T11:07:00.000-04:002008-09-21T11:07:00.000-04:00Mr Saumure dit ce que disent les gens qui ne conna...Mr Saumure dit ce que disent les gens qui ne connaissent rien au droit ni rien à cette affaire.<BR/>Félicitations pour votre travail, Me Fortin.<BR/>Alex Gagné, LavalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4338274291395134766.post-50929702504918197392008-09-20T17:46:00.000-04:002008-09-20T17:46:00.000-04:00Me Fortin.Monsieur Saumure n'a sûrement pas lu vot...Me Fortin.<BR/>Monsieur Saumure n'a sûrement pas lu votre livre... ni les notes du procès. De plus, en disant qu'il n'y a pas de preuve directe, il montre sa parfaite ignorance de notre droit. En effet, la preuve indirecte, ou circonstantielle, n'est pas moins valide que la preuve directe. Sa force tient au fait qu'elle est très difficile à faire. Elle peut même, dans bien des cas, comme vous le soulignez dans votre livre, être supérieure à la preuve directe. La preuve directe n'est pas à l'abri d'un faux témoignage, d'une erreur d'identification, d'une technique erronée.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com