acquittal

No acquittal possible for Montreal man accused in ailing wife’s death: judge

Michel Cadotte, accused of murder in the 2017 death of his ailing wife in what has been described as a mercy killing, heads to the courtroom to hear final arguments on Feb. 19, 2019, in Montreal.

Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press

Jurors hearing the case of a Montreal man accused in the killing of his ailing wife will have to weigh two possible verdicts.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Helene Di Salvo told the eight-man, four-woman jury that they must find Michel Cadotte guilty – the only question is whether his crime was second-degree murder or manslaughter.

The judge is giving final instructions to jurors today after which they will be sequestered until they reach a unanimous verdict.

Story continues below advertisement

Cadotte is charged with second-degree murder in the February 2017 death of Jocelyne Lizotte, his wife of 19 years.

Lizotte, 60, was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease and was unable to care for herself. Cadotte had been told about a year before the slaying that his wife did not qualify for a medically assisted death because she couldn’t consent and was not considered to be at the end of her life.

Di Salvo’s instructions come two years to the day after Lizotte was suffocated with a pillow in her long-term care bed.

Cadotte’s lawyers argued that their client was in a depressed state of mind and unable to cope after watching Lizotte suffer for nine years.

The Crown has countered that Cadotte understood the impact of his actions and intended to kill Lizotte when he held the pillow over her face.

02

India's demand for acquittal, release, and return of Jadhav 'childish', says Chaudhry

© Provided by Dawn Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry addressing a press conference in Islamabad on February 20, 2019. — DawnNewsTV

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry on Wednesday said that it was juvenile of India to expect the acquittal, release, and return of its spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, terming their arguments in the ongoing hearing at the International Court of Justice "childish pleas".

"These are nothing but childish pleas. And, like Khawar Qureshi [Islamabad's counsel] said yesterday: India is perched precariously on a flimsy wall of lies," he said during a press conference in Islamabad.

He highlighted that the answers to certain questions posed by Pakistan were not submitted by India to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The first of these was a clarification sought over the retirement of Jadhav.

"When did Kulbhushan Jadhav actually retire? If he retired at the age of 47, then you must show us a record of the same and explain why he retired before the usual age of retirement," demanded Chaudhry.

The second question pertains to the spy's passport, found by British investigators to be authentic.

"British investigators have confirmed that the passport in his possession is authentic. So the second question posed by Islamabad's counsel was that why was Jadhav found to have an authentic Indian passport when he was arrested? Of course, an authentic Indian passport could not have been provided by us; he must have had it made from India," he said.

"India claims that Jadhav was abducted from the Iranian port city of Chabahar and brought to Pakistan. It is a nine-hour journey from Chabahar to Quetta. Our question is, if he travelled that distance, did you propose an investigation to Iran? Did you ask them if he disappeared from there, and how did it happen?" he inquired.

Know more: Who is Kulbhushan Jadhav?

"We believe the brilliant manner in which Pakistan has presented its arguments in the ICJ, based on those arguments, a decision will be taken on merit," Chaudhry said, adding that "Pakistan's case is very strong."

He said that Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's parliamentary party today also condemned the aggression being shown by India after the Pulawama incident.

"We believe that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is going into the election after five years and so he should run for elections based on his performance instead of taking up the policy of an anti-Pakistan stance, which we consider completely childish," he remarked.

"You have been in power for five years. You should highlight what you did for the people of India and how well you have delivered on the promises made to the people," Chaudhry reasoned.

The information minister said that the government is very satisfied with the splendid way the foreign ministry has tackled this challenge.

"Today India is standing alone in the whole world. Whether it is the EU, Islamic countries ... even Trump has given a statement on the issue. All these statements prove that the entire world is not accepting India's claim," said Chaudhry.

"We don't want to give further rise to tensions. We want to see them reduced and want to bring normalisation. This is why the prime minister categorically made an offer to India yesterday to investigate the matter if they so desire or if they want to hold negotiations, we are ready for negotiations. And this is the way issues are dealt with between countries."

He said that it was completely infantile statement to say that "we will deal with things through aggression".

"And if there is aggression, then of course our army is fully capable of responding and it has set an example in its continued fight against terrorism and in its bravery, which the whole world acknowledges," the information minister declared.

"The people of Pakistan stand behind their government, their country and their army and, God willing, no one will ever be able to harm us in any way," he added resolutely.

He said that the narrative being pushed by BJP and some extremist parties, the way Muslims in India are being targeted after the Pulwama incident, and especially the way Kashmiris are being targeted, are causes of extreme concern for Pakistan.

"International human rights bodies should look into this immediately. The prime minister has today activated human rights organisations and our foreign minister has already taken action on the Kashmir issue. We will continue to raise our voice on the matter and it now deserves to be looked at with greater scrutiny and seriousness," he said.

"We do not think any incident can be used as the foundation for inciting violence among the people. This is a highly inappropriate response to the matter," Chaudhry added.

The information minister said that the prime minister had also addressed several issues on the domestic front today.

"Whatever action NAB has taken today, it has taken independently. It does not consult with the government in any way. Our own senior minister from Punjab was arrested and today they have arrested the Sindh Assembly speaker."

"All of this has nothing to do with the government. We do believe that the accountability process should be kept separate; it would be inappropriate to mix it with politics."

He said, therefore, it was highly important that the accountability process remain independent and should run freely.

"This is why during all of NAB's operations, even if they are against our own people, we have always supported the rule of law," the information minister said.

He said that the government expects the same kind of support from all political parties.

"If they want to see Pakistan progress, they will have to support the rule of law," Chaudhry said in conclusion to his briefing.

03

Sex assault acquittal overturned; judge relied on victim stereotypes, court finds

TORONTO — An acquittal in a sexual assault case was tossed aside on Wednesday and a new trial ordered because the trial judge had relied on myths of how victims should behave.

In ordering a new trial, the Court of Appeal found the reliance on discredited stereotypes by Superior Court Justice Alissa Mitchell amounted to legal error.

Normally, appeal courts will not weigh in on a trial judge’s credibility findings unless they are based on legal error. In this case, the Appeal Court found reason to second-guess the judge’s findings.

“Reliance upon stereotypical views about how victims of sexual assault would behave is an error of law,” the court said.

The case turned on the credibility of the complainant and that of her brother-in-law, who can only be identified as A.B.A.

Court records show the woman accused A.B.A., who was separated at the time from his wife, of rape and forcing oral sex on her at her apartment multiple times over the course of a day that also included going out together for food, drinking beer and consuming cocaine. She alleged he again sexually assaulted her several times five days later at her sister’s place.

A.B.A. insisted all the sexual activity was consensual.

At trial in London, Ont., the woman testified she was terrified of her brother-in-law. She said she fought back on some occasions but submitted to the alleged assaults because she was afraid of him.

Mitchell, adopting what she called a “common sense” approach, found the woman had failed to flee or call for help and had continued to associate with the man after the alleged assaults. That conduct, the judge found, undermined her credibility.

“She is either scared to fight back and tell him to stop — or not,” Mitchell said in her judgment. “The fact she behaved inconsistently in this regard weakens her credibility.”

In April 2018, Mitchell acquitted A.B.A.

On appeal, the prosecution argued the judge’s reliance on myths or generalized assumptions about how sexual assault victims are expected to behave amounted to legal error.

A.B.A. countered that Mitchell had deemed him a credible witness, and had accepted his view the sex was consensual. As such, he argued, that was enough for an acquittal — regardless of the judge’s view of the complainant’s credibility.

The Appeal Court, however, disagreed.

“Inherent in this approach is a comparison of the complainant’s behaviour to what (Mitchell) viewed was ‘appropriate’ behaviour that (she) would have expected of an adult threatened with a sexual assault or a victim of sexual assault,” the Appeal Court ruled.

“The issue here was not what steps the complainant should have taken to protect herself but, rather, whether she consented to sexual activity.”

In its decision, the Appeal Court noted the prosecution didn’t need to prove the verdict would have been different absent Mitchell’s errors but that the errors had a material bearing on the acquittal.

The higher court agreed Mitchell had acquitted A.B.A. because she believed his evidence. But it also found her assessment of the women’s credibility played a key role given her explanation that she did not believe the complainant based on stereotypical views of victims.