Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Top court to hear landmark spousal abuse case

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Top court to hear landmark spousal abuse case

    The Supreme Court of Canada will begin hearing arguments this morning on whether victims of domestic abuse can hire a hit man to kill their partners, a controversial issue which tests the limits of the defence of duress.

    The case involves a Nova Scotia woman, Nicole Doucet, who tried to hire an undercover RCMP officer to kill her husband Michael Ryan.
    from CBC news Canada ...

  • #2
    Who knows how this will turn out, and if you read the original court decisions, the situation was pretty extreme.

    My own feeling is that the potential hit man was still obviously breaking the law and would have to be charged. The woman therefore cannot be exhonerated. If she had the wherewithal and focus to hire someone to kill, then she was capable of hiring a bodyguard and a moving company. I can recognize that the police and society let her down and didn't afford her the protection she deserved, but there were still options.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have been following this case for a while... Double-standard in the extreme - makes me want to puke.

      Cheers!

      Gary

      Comment


      • #4
        Does this mean I might be able to hire someone ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gary M View Post
          I have been following this case for a while... Double-standard in the extreme - makes me want to puke.

          Cheers!

          Gary
          I guess, sometimes you have to live it. I remember being woken by my mother in the middle of the night, told to get dressed and hurry down, only to be met at the front door by my father, telling her that if she or the kids took one more step, someone would die that night.

          None of our family, family friends, business acquaintances had a clue about what was going on in our household. My parent were both well-known and successful business people. My mother would have received no support from the police in our small town.

          So, I am more open minded, perhaps, about a duress plea.
          Last edited by mcdreamy; 06-14-2012, 10:08 PM. Reason: eta: spelling
          Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

          Comment


          • #6
            What makes me wanna puke is someone being bullied, yelled at, threatened and hiding their bruises.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
              I guess, sometimes you have to live it. I remember being woken by my mother in the middle of the night, told to get dressed and hurry down, only to be met at the front door by my father, telling her that if she or the kids took one more step, someone would die that night.

              None of our family, family friends, business acquaintances had a clue about what was going on in our household. My parent were both well-known and successful business people. My mother would have received no support from the police in our small town.

              So, I am more open minded, perhaps, about a duress plea.

              Having been through a little of what this woman went through, I can honestly say that I understand why they would consider a duress plea. Being under the complete control of another person, and then treated like you are less than dirt; kicked, punched spit on etc, a person gets to a point where they can consider doing anything just to escape. It's part of the human survival instinct: "fight ot flight".

              I'm not saying that she should go unpunished, I don't know enough about the case to even have a solid opinion. But I do understand that in this situation why a woman would feel like that was their only option.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am generally going to stay out of this one. I see both sides and I can foresee that if this passes it will be abused in the future and how this defence is likely only available to one sex when it is statically proven both are nearly equally likely to be abused.

                Edit - and if she is not convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, I feel there must be a lesser charge in place to mitigate her actions.

                Yeah, the husband is an evil man. But like Mess said, if one can hire a hitman, they can hire a bodyguard and/or tell their family to assist them in getting away.
                Last edited by HammerDad; 06-15-2012, 03:56 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oh, ITA agree with you Hammer! She does need to have consequences.

                  But I will say that in that kind of situation not everyone is able to make clear decisions. Some people may have been so brainwashed that they honestly believe that there is no way to escape. hiring a bodyguard may be an option that is not taken because of paranoia or fear of him finding out.

                  "Battered Wife Syndrome" does occur, and we all know that many people who claim it don't really have it (just like the insanity plea). DV is claimed far too often by people who have not really experienced it.

                  If this is allowed you can bet that someone will use it. Precedence-setting case for sure. I will have to pay more attention to it as well. I see both sides too, and am glad I am not the one to make that decision.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I honestly can not find any reason how you can justify to hire hit man and use it as self defense.

                    It's just does not make any sense.

                    From my understanding killing someone in self defense only justified if you basically have no choice and have to kill or die (unless you are in Florida where you can kill someone because he just look threatened).

                    I mean really how you can tell that she has no other options? In Canada? Really? Woman here can just call and guy will be charged - no question asked...

                    Of course I do not know any details but would any details can justify you to hire hit man and then claim self defense? I am sorry but I can't accept and I hope this court will not even suggestion that this can be justified... It's scary future considering the fact how DV really investigated. Call->charge->will look into any evidence later.

                    ADDED:

                    this is the case
                    2010 NSSC 114 (CanLII)

                    and appeal
                    2011 NSCA 30 (CanLII)

                    WD
                    Last edited by WorkingDAD; 06-15-2012, 04:32 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think I need to read more about the case before responding. I'm not sure exactly what her legal defence is, and how her hiring a hitman is being explained. Is she claiming it was self-defense, is she claiming that she was under duress? I think there is probably more to it than the standard "not guilty by insanity" plea...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        She had already left the home and was living with family. The husband continued to stalk and threaten, so she went to the police, who said they could do nothing. (Note: I'm going by news reports and it isn't said whether she had been to court for a restraining order.) When she got no response from the police, she started "asking around" trying to find someone to kill her husband. From the wording, it seemed like she asked many people, probably around bars. She had apparently randomly asked an undercover RCMP officer. Then it all went south.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mess View Post
                          She had already left the home and was living with family. The husband continued to stalk and threaten, so she went to the police, who said they could do nothing. (Note: I'm going by news reports and it isn't said whether she had been to court for a restraining order.) When she got no response from the police, she started "asking around" trying to find someone to kill her husband. From the wording, it seemed like she asked many people, probably around bars. She had apparently randomly asked an undercover RCMP officer. Then it all went south.
                          well
                          I read the case (did not read appeal)
                          what stract me the most

                          I.
                          The accused is one of nine children, she has six sisters and two brothers. She described her family as close-knit, however, following her marriage to Mr. Ryan, the relationship with her parents and siblings became strained over time.
                          Where all that family was for 15 years?

                          II.
                          [59] The Crown has also invited me to look at the timing of the offence and conclude, from the timing of the offence that the motive for Ms. Ryan wanting her husband killed at that time was a custody hearing which was going to take place the following week.

                          [60] The weakness in this argument is that it was the police who initiated the contact with Ms. Ryan not the other way around. It was they who controlled the timing of the encounter not Ms. Ryan. I am not satisfied that the timing of the offence had anything to do with the timing of the family court hearing. The urgency is more likely related to the threat Ms. Ryan perceived.
                          Really? Police contacted her? I may be miss something but does it mean that police calling people and offer hit man service and than charge them who did not resist temptation?

                          III.
                          [47] Ms. Ryan had testified that Mr. Ryan had been charged with uttering threats against her but those charges were eventually dropped. She called the RCMP on nine occasions, victim services on eleven occasions, and 911 on one occasion.
                          No word about what nature of complain was and what actions were taken by those agencies ...

                          3. The threats must be of such gravity that they might well cause a reasonable person in the same situation as the accused to act in the same manner.

                          [155] Again, I am satisfied that the accused has met the requisite standard with respect to this part of the test. A reasonable person in the circumstances of Ms. Ryan would seek to find a solution to her plight. She had attempted to have the matter dealt with by the authorities; however, she was repeatedly faced with the response that it was a “civil matter”. A reasonable person in the circumstances of Ms. Ryan, when an individual presented themselves to her with a solution to her problem would have acted in the same manner faced with the evidence as I have outlined it, including the history of Mr. Ryan’s violence towards others, his manipulative and controlling manner, his access to firearms, the threats which he made, and the lack of response by any persons in authority, establishes this element of the defence.
                          No kidding!!!!?????? No comments....

                          IV.
                          Her evidence only (or from her side) - Mr. did not testify at all. Bizzare.


                          I did not change my position after reading case. It's actually raise more questions that I had before... Yes guy had serious problems (I wonder does his military career has anything to do with that - Gary M can comment on it I think). Yes I would completely understand her if she lost it and kill guy with her bare hands or hummer considering what she went through (base on her evidence) but to go and look for hit man ....

                          I would agree that her circumstances should be taken into consideration and reflect her sentencing. But you can not send message "if police did not help you hiring hit man is your solution"

                          this is bad bad decision by Judge. If it pass we are in a big big trouble. It already cited by one case. Just imagine that it was not police office but real hit man...


                          Just my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
                            well
                            I read the case (did not read appeal)
                            what stract me the most

                            I.


                            Where all that family was for 15 years?

                            II.


                            Really? Police contacted her? I may be miss something but does it mean that police calling people and offer hit man service and than charge them who did not resist temptation?

                            III.


                            No word about what nature of complain was and what actions were taken by those agencies ...



                            No kidding!!!!?????? No comments....

                            IV.
                            Her evidence only (or from her side) - Mr. did not testify at all. Bizzare.


                            I did not change my position after reading case. It's actually raise more questions that I had before... Yes guy had serious problems (I wonder does his military career has anything to do with that - Gary M can comment on it I think). Yes I would completely understand her if she lost it and kill guy with her bare hands or hummer considering what she went through (base on her evidence) but to go and look for hit man ....

                            I would agree that her circumstances should be taken into consideration and reflect her sentencing. But you can not send message "if police did not help you hiring hit man is your solution"

                            this is bad bad decision by Judge. If it pass we are in a big big trouble. It already cited by one case. Just imagine that it was not police office but real hit man...


                            Just my opinion.
                            i agree with most of what you wrote except for the family part. Part of an abusers game plan is to cut off their victim from any sort of safety net or support from friends and family. It may not be that the family wasnt there for their daughter, it may be that he didnt allow contact between his victim and the support that may have helped loosen his power over her.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Wasn't a hit man but there's a book called "Life with Billy" based on a true story in which the woman shot her husband while he was passed out (drunk) in his pick up truck. It happened several years ago in Atlantic Canada. There was also a made for tv movie. Sorry to be so blunt, but Billy Stafford was a S.O.B., and deserved what he got.

                              I am not familiar w/above case but will definitely take a look. Victims of serious mental and physical abuse can be driven to do all sorts of things after they've endured extreme torture at the hands of their abuser.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X