Court Observation Assignment

.docx

School

Seneca College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3DM3

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

7

Uploaded by ElderNightingale4154

1 Running Head: SUPREME COURT OBSERATION Court Observation Assignment York University Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms AP/ SOSC 3360 B T. A - Arunita Das November 11, 2022 On March 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a case that I have selected to follow, Omar Black v. Her Majesty the Queen . The following case involves an appellant charged
2 SUPREME COURT OBSERATION with a criminal offence. The appellant, Mr. Omar Black , appealed the case regarding the charge of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. Mr. Black travelled from Antigua to return home to Toronto. At the time of his arrival, Mr. Black failed to claim any baggage. Later that evening, CBSA found an unclaimed suitcase containing fifteen kilograms of cocaine and personal belongings. Evidence came back with Mr. Black's and another individual's DNA. Although evidence was found in the suitcase with Mr. Black’s DNA, there is no additional evidence leading to Mr. Black checking in the suitcase at the time of boarding in Antigua. Mr. Black denies any knowledge of the suitcase and claims he never checked it in and abandoned it in Antigua. Mr. Black has been accused based on the following evidence: the suitcase belonged to the appellant, his name and address were found on the identification tag, the suitcase travelled from Antigua to Canada on the same flight, and DNA was found in the suitcase. No additional evidence was found to prove Mr. Black's innocence. At the time of the incident, there was evidence of an internal conspiracy at Toronto Pearson Airport involving issues with baggage handlers, who were illegally importing narcotics at the time. As a result, the Court decided to request a new trial to reconsider the evidence. The Supreme Court of Canada serves as the last Court of Appeal with the highest judicial review power concerning federal and provincial legislation in Canada. Those appointed to the position of the judge are selected by the Governor in Council; they must be a judge of the Supreme Court or a member of the bar for a minimum of ten years in the province or territory. A Supreme Courtroom is configured quite differently from a Provincial Offense Courtroom, there are five judges appointed to the case instead of one in a Provincial Offense Courtroom. The Chief Justice sits in the centre of the Supreme Courtroom, followed by the senior Associate Justices to his left and right. The Courtroom appeared to be a well-organized and professional
3 SUPREME COURT OBSERATION environment at the time of observation. As the case went on, I noticed that the appellant and respondent were both being represented by two attorneys. Observing a Supreme Court case for the first time, I found this to be a surprising arrangement. Cases were available in webcast recordings, allowing spectators to witness judges and attorneys who were scheduled to speak throughout the case. The Supreme Court of Canada held hearings in person in 2018, recorded them, and made the recordings available online. The ability to review the hearing online is a useful quality, as anyone can access them at any time and place. This gives us access to a video recording of the Court hearing, docket, summary, and factums on the appeal. If hearings were held in person, and case information is not made accessible online, it would be difficult for spectators to have access, which may require them to visit the Courthouse when needing case information. The Supreme Court judges present for the case at the time were Chief Justice Wagner, Justice Rowe, Justice Karakatsanis, Justice Brown, and Justice Martin. Judges always maintained a professional demeanour during the case and continuously received respect from the attorneys during the case. The case proceeded with Chief Justice Wagner leading the case decision and presenting the attorney to the stands; at times, senior Justices engaged with the attorneys about the decision case. The judges were impartial in their assessment of the case and evidence, determining that there wasn't sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's innocence. Despite the evidence found, the appellant should receive a form of punishment. Information presented to the Supreme Court Judges during the case was evidence with the appellant’s DNA and conspiracies during the conviction. According to the charges made against the appellant under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, if convicted of the charges, you could face up to ten years in prison. The following sentence of ten years in prison is appropriate
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help