R. V Burns Case Brief

2046 Words9 Pages
R. v Burns case Brief

Case Facts
The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia, posing as a mob boss, it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They threw their cloths away and took a bath to wash away the blood. The accused claim that the alleged confession was a lie to gain the confidence of who they thought was a Mob Boss (para.11). They were to be extradited to the United States, where if
…show more content…
v. Kindler was controlling even where the fugitives are Canadians. (para24). The extradition was nullified on a 2-1 decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The Minister of Justice appealed the British Columbia Court of Appeal 's decision to nullify the extradition without assurances to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada 's Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) said in regards to the section 12 of the charter claim, that in R. v. Schmidt, Judge La Forest J. concluded that the charter cannot be used to "govern how criminal proceedings in a foreign country are to be conducted" (para.51) and therefore the respondents section 12 charter claim was rejected.. However, the SCC decided that s.7 of the charter was relevant to the case, and made their decision based on the interpretation of s. 7. The SCC found that s.7 evidently was the real issue they had to deal with (para.31). The minister in this case, depended on the courts agreeing that the precedent in Kindler and Ng applied to this case. In Kindler and Ng the courts allowed for the accused to be extradited without assurances by the Minister of Justice. In Kindler, the courts decided that each extradition case, where convictions could result in the death penalty, each hearing should be reviewed on a case by case basis known as the "balancing process" (para.65). The respondents claim that unlike Kindler and Ng, which were decided nearly 10 years
Get Access