At his first trial in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Mr. Latimer was found guilty of his charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He had made appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was accepted and the SCC invalidated the previous conviction due to the Crown’s improper actions during the jury selection which came into light after the appeal court trial. The appeal had been filed to argue that they had not legally arrested him, but the court ordered a new trial after information about the authorities questioning and picking the jury members based upon their moral standpoints with controversial issues.
The second trial at the SCC was concerned with if Mr. Latimer’s sentence was cruel and unusual and a breach of section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that his sentence of 10 year minimum sentence was not cruel and unusual. The Crown pointed out that Mr. Latimer’s actions were planned, and he did not regret them.
Part 3: Significance of the Judgement
Why did the Supreme Court hear this particular case?
R. v. Latimer more or less an ethical debate on if mercy killings can be justified. Many Canadians felt that Robert Latimer should’ve received a more lenient sentence, but on the other hand that would set a precedent for future cases and create a more lenient standpoint towards mercy killings. The ethical dilemma between the rights of a disabled individual under the Charter and their well being were brought into question. The Supreme Court heard this particular case because of it’s controversial nature and the attention over it.
Was this a landmark case? Why?
Yes, R. v. Latimer was definitely a landmark case due to it’s high profile and controversial nature. Also, it set a precedent for future cases because the ruling gave him the minimum sentence within the law (10 years) rather than a more lenient sentence that the defence argued for. The mercy killing was treated a second degree murder and set the government’s stance on the issue of mercy killings.
Did the Supreme Court set a precedent? Explain.
Yes, the Supreme Court set a precedent on the sentence of mercy killings. There was support for Robert Latimer to receive a more lenient sentence, however the court still treated the case as a second degree murder as it was planned, and the defendant had no regret of his action. Robert Latimer received the minimum 10 year penalty for a second degree murder as he acted out of compassion.\
Other Comments
According, to a report in 1999 73% of Canadians felt that Robert Latimer acted out of compassion for his daughter, and 41% believe that mercy killings should not be against the law.
All 9 Supreme Court judges were on this case and voted unanimously for the 10 year sentence was not a cruel or unusual punishment.