Wow wowww

1006 Words3 Pages

CLU3M1: UNIT 1 CA CASE ANALYSIS STATUTE LAW AND COMMON LAW R. V. SAULS, [2002] B.C.J. NO. 3083 BRITISH COLOMBIA PROVINCIAL COURT Four aboriginal people (Mark Sauls, Trevor Dennis, Roseanne Jack and Roderick Anderson) participated in a roadblock of a highway in British Columbia and hindered a nearby excavation. The excavation for the expansion of the Sun Peaks resort caused a dispute between the British Columbia government and the Neskonlith Indian Band. As a result, these aboriginals obstructed both lanes of the highway for hours holding up traffic and causing havoc. The RCMP then negotiated with the accused and the blockade was eventually removed after which two of the accused jumped onto the excavation site and lay down in front of an excavator, forcing it to stop. The accused were charged with intimidation from and mischief under the criminal code. Mark Sauls and his band members maintained that they had acted “with legal justification or excuse, and with color of right” if which true under Section 429 of the Criminal Code would give them the right to act as they did. It was their position that they honestly believed the highway and resort were on aboriginal land and they had the legal right not only to control the land but to eject trespassers from it. The trial judge however dismissed their defence of Color of rights with the ruling that the group did not have an honest mistaken belief of the law but rather disregarded it. As well, if their claims were true, the method in which they attempted to prove their point were extreme signifying a more political statement rather than honest belief. They were found guilty of the charges and three of the accused thus received a sentence of 90 days of imprisonment for blockading a road... ... middle of paper ... ...ed by the convicted can be found in Section 429 of the Canadian Criminal Code. In conclusion, the colour of rights Statute Law was interpreted and applied correctly by the trial judge who made a decision of Common Law rather than solely based on Statute Law. EXTRA NOTE: After further research, I found that the decision by the trial judge was appealed by the convicted when they presented the following arguments: failed to consider the aboriginal perspective, erred in applying the wrong test for what constitutes colour of right or honest belief, erred in applying the wrong test for mens rea (conscious guilty state of mind), failed to apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and erred in making material errors of fact on the evidence. The appeal judge, Honourable Mr. Justice Cole, dismissed all the arguments as contradictory, opinionated and self-serving.

Open Document