BROADCASTS.com

b'

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

The leaked draft decision on abortion from the US Supreme Court has raised questions concerning the law in Canada.

For 100 years in Canada, from 1869 until 1969, having or performing an abortion was a criminal offence in Canada.

In 1969 the Criminal Code was amended to permit abortions but only when a committee of doctors certified that a woman\\u2019s life or health was in danger. As \\u201chealth\\u201d was not defined, the interpretation of this exception was inconsistent between hospitals.

Dr. Morgentaler was an abortion advocate and openly acknowledged performing hundreds of abortions without the approval of a committee of other doctors. He was repeatedly charged with performing abortions but was acquitted on each occasion by juries.

Juries are not required to give reasons for their verdict and can apply community standards to criminal prosecutions by refusing to convict.

Crown Counsel appealed one of the jury acquittals, and the Quebec Court of Appeal substituted a conviction. This resulted in public outrage and eventually the \\u201cMorgentaler Amendment\\u201d to the Criminal Code, which, in 1975, removed the authority of Courts of Appeal to enter a conviction where a jury finds someone not guilty. Following this amendment, a Court of Appeal can only order a new trial.

Also, in 1975, Dr. Morgentaler appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the criminal code law restricting abortion was unconstitutional. Because this was prior to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he was unsuccessful. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the law was valid. This decision was two years after the US Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade.

In 1988 Dr. Morgentaler was back in the Supreme Court of Canada, again arguing that the 1969 Criminal Code restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional. This time, he was successful.

The Charter became part of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. As a result, in 1988, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that the abortion offence in the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees that \\u201cEveryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.\\u201d

Conservative governments made two subsequent attempts to pass legislation to restrict abortion. The second attempt passed in the House of Commons but resulted in a tie vote in the Senate. Pursuant to the rules of the Senate, a tie vote does not pass, and, as a result, the new Criminal Code restrictions on abortion did not become law.

As a result, there are no federal laws in Canada restricting abortion, and it is dealt with like any other medical procedure.

Also, on the show, a protester charged with criminal contempt for allegedly breaching an injunction relating to blocking logging in the Fairy Creek area was found not guilty. The Crown must prove that the accused knew about the injunction to be convicted of criminal contempt.

While the injunction was posted on the internet, there was no evidence the accused had seen it.

The man was not physically blocking the road to the logging area. Instead, he crossed the road twice while banging a drum.

The RCMP had read out a summary of the injunction telling people they couldn\\u2019t blockade the road. The accused was arrested 15 seconds later.

There wasn\\u2019t evidence that the accused had been told the injunction prohibited him from crossing the road.

Finally, the legal approach to assessing the credibility of an accused person in a criminal case is discussed.

Follow this link for links to the cases discusse