USA v. Burns (2001), 148 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);
243 W.A.C. 1
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.017
Minister of Justice (appellant) v. Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay (respondents) and Amnesty International, The International Centre for Criminal Law & Human Rights, The Criminal Lawyers Association, The Washington Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers and The Senate of the Republic of Italy (intervenors)
(26129; 2001 SCC 7)
Indexed As: United States of America v. Burns and Rafay
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
February 15, 2001.
Summary:
The Minister of Justice chose to surrender two 18 year old Canadian citizens to Washington State for trial on three charges of “aggravated first degree murder” without obtaining assurances that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty. The citizens sought judicial review.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Hollinrake, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 59; 152 W.A.C. 59, allowed the application and directed that the Minister seek the assurances described in art. 6 of the Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty as a condition of surrender. Unconditional surrender violated the citizens’ mobility rights under s. 6(1) of the Charter. Further, the Minister breached his administrative law duty to exercise his discretion properly when he refused to seek assurances on the basis that assurances would be sought only in “special” cases. The Minister appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal’s result, but for different reasons. Unconditional surrenders violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7). The infringement was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Minister was constitutionally required to seek and obtain assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed as a condition of extradition.
Civil Rights – Topic 525
Mobility rights – Right to remain in Canada – Extradition – The Supreme Court of Canada held that every extradition was a prima facie infringement of a Canadian citizen’s s. 6(1) Charter right to “remain in” Canada – Accordingly, forcible removal must be justified as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 – Two Canadian citizens opposing extradition to the United States to face murder charges and the death penalty submitted that a surrender without assurances that the death penalty would not be sought was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 because their rights were not impaired “as minimally as possible” where such assurances were not sought – The Supreme Court of Canada held that “the real issue here is the death penalty. The death penalty is overwhelmingly a justice issue and only marginally a mobility rights issue. The death penalty issue should be confronted directly and it should be confronted under s. 7 of the Charter” – See paragraphs 39 to 48.
Civil Rights – Topic 3129
Trials – Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings – Criminal and quasi- criminal proceedings – Extradition proceedings – The United States sought the extradition of two 18 year old Canadian citizens to face multiple murder charges in Washington State – The Minister chose to unconditionally surrender the citizens without obtaining assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “in the absence of exceptional circumstances, which we refrain from trying to anticipate [and did not exist in this case], assurances in death penalty cases are always constitutionally required.” – The court considered: (1) international initiatives opposing extradition without assurances and to abolish the death penalty; (2) state practice increasingly favouring abolition of the death penalty; (3) recognition in most jurisdictions of personal characteristics of the fugitive as mitigating factors in death penalty cases; (4) the growing awareness of the rate of wrongful convictions in murder cases and the irreversibility of such miscarriages of justice if the death penalty were imposed; and (5) the “death row phenomenon” – Considering all of these factors, the court held that extradition without obtaining assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed violated the principles of fundamental justice contrary to s. 7 of the Charter and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 – See paragraphs 58 to 144.
Civil Rights – Topic 3840.2
Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment – What constitutes – Extradition – At issue was whether extradition of a Canadian citizen to face murder charges without obtaining assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed constituted “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” under s. 12 of the Charter – A threshold issue was whether s. 12 even applied where the foreign state (not Canada) sought to impose and carry out the death sentence, particularly where the Charter guaranteed certain rights and freedoms by “the Parliament and government of Canada” – The Supreme Court of Canada declined to resolve the issue, stating that “the degree of causal remoteness between the extradition order to face trial and the potential imposition of capital punishment as one of many possible outcomes to this prosecution make this a case more appropriately reviewed under s. 7 than under s. 12.” – See paragraphs 50 to 57.
Civil Rights – Topic 8344
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Exceptions – Principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 3129
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Exceptions – Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 3129
].
Extradition – Topic 3343
Surrender to demanding country – Conditions precedent – Assurance that death penalty will not be imposed – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 3129
].
Extradition – Topic 3947
Practice – Judicial review – Decision to surrender – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “it is generally for the Minister, not the court, to assess the weight of competing considerations in extradition policy, but the availability of the death penalty, like death itself, opens up a different dimension. The difficulties and occasional miscarriages of the criminal law are located in the area of human experience that falls squarely within ‘the inherent domain of the judiciary as guardian of the justice system’ … It is from this perspective, recognizing the unique finality and irreversibility of the death penalty, that the constitutionality of the Minister’s decision falls to be decided.” – See paragraph 38.
Cases Noticed:
Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 14].
United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 16].
Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 17].
Reference Re Ng Extradition, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 858; 129 N.R. 177; 119 A.R. 300, refd to. [para. 17].
Schmidt v. Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; 76 N.R. 12; 20 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 17].
Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 32].
Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 32].
Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 32].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 32].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 32].
Furman v. Georgia (1972), 408 U.S. 238, refd to. [para. 33].
Gregg v. Georgia (1976), 428 U.S. 153, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 37].
Burley, Re (1865), 1 U.C.L.J. 34, refd to. [para. 39].
Federal Republic of Germany v. Rauca (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].
Whitley v. United States of America (1994), 75 O.A.C. 100; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 99 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; 197 N.R. 169; 91 O.A.C. 121, refd to. [para. 41].
United States of America v. Swystun (1987), 50 Man.R.(2d) 129; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 222 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].
Decter v. Halifax County Correctional Centre et al. (1983), 47 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 120 A.P.R. 203; 5 C.C.C.(3d) 364 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].
United States of America v. Allard and Charette, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564; 75 N.R. 260; 8 Q.A.C. 178, refd to. [para. 51].
United States of America et al. v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; 213 N.R. 321; 101 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 57].
R. v. Miller and Cockriell, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680; 11 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 66].
S. v. Makwanyane (1995), (3) S.A. 391 (S.A. Const. Ct.), refd to. [para. 67].
R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 W.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 72].
R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25, refd to. [para. 72].
Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; 225 N.R. 2973, refd to. [para. 72].
Ross v. United States of America (1994), 51 B.C.A.C. 1; 84 W.A.C. 1; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].
Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 13, refd to. [para. 80].
Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) – see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 80].
Pratt v. Jamaica (Attorney General), [1993] 4 All E.R. 769 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 94].
R. v. Milgaard (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 206 (Sask. C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 566n (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 98].
Reference Re Milgaard, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 866; 135 N.R. 81; 100 Sask.R. 183; 18 W.A.C. 183, refd to. [para. 98].
R. v. Bentley (Deceased), [1998] E.W.J. No. 1165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].
R. v. Mattan, [1998] E.W.J. No. 4668 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].
Solesbee v. Balkcom (1950), 339 U.S. 9, refd to. [para. 122].
Elledge v. Florida (1998), 119 S. Ct. 366, refd to. [para. 122].
Knight v. Florida (1999), 120 S. Ct. 459, refd to. [para. 122].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 134].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 6(1), sect. 7, sect. 12, sect. 32(1) [para. 25].
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 25].
Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, sect. 25(1) [paras. 25, 32].
Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States of America, Can. T.S. 1976, No. 3, art. 6, art. 17 [para. 26].
Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, E.T.S. No. 114, generally [para. 87].
Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990), 29 I.L.M. 1447, generally [para. 87].
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA Res. 44/128, generally [para. 87].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bienen, L.B., The Quality of Justice in Capital Cases: Illinois as a Case Study (1998), 61 Law & Contemp. Probs. 193, p. 213, footnote 103 [para. 108].
Canada, Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin, Report (1998), vol. 2, p. 1243 [para. 99].
Canada, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution, Digest of Findings and Recommendations (1989), p. 1 [para. 97].
Chicago Tribune, Fixing the Death Penalty, Dec. 29, 2000, p. 22N [para. 108].
Council of Europe, The Death Penalty: Abolition in Europe (May 1999), pp. 169 to 184 [para. 87].
Dead Man Walking Out, The Economist (June 10-16, 2000), p. 21 [para. 91].
Guy, Richard P., Status Report on the Death Penalty in Washington State (March 2000), p. 2 [para. 118].
Haines, H.H., Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972-1994 (1996), p. 211 [para. 33].
Liebman, James S., Fagan, Jeffrey, and West, Valerie, A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995 (June 12, 2000), generally [para. 110].
Liebman, James S., Fagan, Jeffrey, West, Valerie, and Lloyd Jonathan, Capital Attrition: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995 (2000), 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1839, generally [para. 110].
New York Times, New Hampshire Veto Saves Death Penalty, May 19, 2000, p. 16 [para. 108].
Schabas, W.A., The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law (2nd Ed. 1997), p. 176 [para. 87].
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., and Dwyer, J., Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted (2000), generally [para. 109].
United Nations, General Assembly, Model Treaty on Extradition, U.N. Doc. A/RES/45/116, Dec. 14, 1990, art. 4(d) [para. 82].
White, W.S., Capital Punishment’s Future (1993), 91 Mich. L. Rev. 1429, generally [para. 33].
Counsel:
S. David Frankel, Q.C., and Deborah J. Strachan, for the appellant;
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., and Alison Wheeler, for the respondent, Burns;
Marlys A. Edwardh, Clayton Ruby, Jill Copeland and A. Breese Davies, for the respondent, Rafay;
David Matas and Mark Hecht, for the intervenor, Amnesty International;
Martin W. Mason (written submissions), for the intervenor, the International Centre for Criminal Law & Human Rights;
Michael Lomer and James Lockyer, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers Association;
Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C., and Nikos Harris, for the intervenor, the Washington Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers;
Lorne Waldman (written submissions), for the intervenor, the Senate of the Republic of Italy.
Solicitors of Record:
Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Greenspan, Henein & White, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Burns;
Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Rafay;
David Matas, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, Amnesty International;
Gowling Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, International Centre for Criminal Law & Human Rights;
Pinkofsky & Lockyer, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Criminal Lawyers Association;
Peck Tammen, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, Washington Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers;
Jackman, Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Senate of the Republic of Italy.
This appeal was heard on May 23, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On February 15, 2001, the following judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages by the Court.
