Trial Lac-Mégantic: “A difficult concept” for the jurors

Michael Nguyen

Saturday, 20 January, 2018 01:00

UPDATE
Saturday, 20 January, 2018 01:00

Look at this article

Jurors in the trial of the ex-employees of the MMA have had a heavy task to decide on a charge particularly delicate, explain, many of the lawyers contacted by The Newspaper.

File Photo Martin Alarie

Mia Manocchio, lawyer

“The criminal negligence is a difficult concept,” says the lawyer Mia Manocchio. I teach at the school of the law society and it is not always easy. It is difficult to understand and to prove. “

Unlike other charges in the criminal Code, the Crown did not have to prove that the ex-employees of the MMA intended to derail the train which caused the death of 47 people in Lac-Mégantic.

File Photo, Michael Nguyen

Alexandra Longueville, a lawyer

Instead, she had to convince them that the actions of the defendants constituted ” a marked departure from what would have been a reasonable person in the same circumstances “, explains for its part the lawyer Alexandra Longueville.

“When we speak of the reasonable person, compared with someone who has the same skills, explain to Me Longueville. Even if a defendant has made mistakes, it is necessary that there is a carefree dissolute and reckless. A simple indiscretion, this is not enough. “

This question was the sinews of war, ” says Charles B. Side. And the jury concluded that the Crown’s evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, ” he said.

Archival Photo Pierre-Paul Poulin

Jean-Claude Hebert, a lawyer

Lawyer Jean-Claude Hébert believes that, in cases of criminal negligence, ” it may not be a priori the best choice to go before a jury “.

“The concepts that apply are blurred “, he said, while recalling that it is the Crown who has chosen this mode of trial.

Serious work

The jurors have not spent years studying the law as do the judges and they do not have training in the railway field. But the judge was educated in law and all the evidence has been presented in accordance with the law. “I think that we can be confident that, having worked for nine days, the jury had to do it the legal exercise with seriousness, that he didn’t let go of the feelings “, says the lawyer Veronique Robert.

Photo Martin Alarie

Nicole Gibeault, retired justice

The length of the discussions and the details requested on the “marked difference” necessary to a conviction, demonstrate the serious work of the jury, said the retired justice Nicole Gibeault.

“Even if it is a question complicated, you should not underestimate the capacity of citizens, she said. They have grasped their role, and even in the face of an impasse, instead of throwing in the towel, they continued to work. “

The lawyer Walid Hijazi is convinced that the jurors have put their emotions to one side in a trial relating to one of the greatest tragedies in Quebec.

In The Appeal ?

Now the question is if the Crown decides to appeal verdicts of acquittal. As the deliberations of the jurors are secret, the manner in which the jurors came to their conclusion can not be attacked.

Photo Chantal Poirier

Jean-Pierre Rancourt, a lawyer

“The only way to make a call, it is addressing the directives of the judge or the evidence that was admitted or denied,” says the criminal lawyer Jean-Pierre Rancourt.

For example, at the trial, the jury never knew that the driver Tom Harding had already been suspended for five days, in 2008, for failing to tighten the hand brakes on a convoy.

“But after a trial like that, I don’t think the Crown would have an interest to appeal,” he concludes.

– With the collaboration of Antoine Lacroix, Hugo Duchaine and Camille Garnier