Law 12Inquiry Unit

R. v. Latimer [2001] 1 S.C.R.3 (Cdn Case Law Studies,Dickinson,2004,p.11-15)

Introduction

The extraordinary history of the case of R. v. Latimer has been well documented in both the courts and the press. Throughout the trial, questions arose about several important issues, including the competence of the judge, the use of the defence of necessity, jury nullification, i.e., the right of the jury to refuse to impose the law, and whether, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed could be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Could the case of young Tracy Latimer set a dangerous precedent that would endanger the rights, and lives, of all disabled people?

Facts

Tracy Latimer was a 12-year-old girl afflicted from birth with a severe form of cerebral palsy. Quadriplegic and bedridden most of the time, Tracy had the mental capacity of a 4-monthold baby and could communicate only through facial expressions, laughing, and crying. She was dependent on others for all her needs. It was thought that Tracy constantly experienced a lot of pain and she suffered five or six seizures daily. Doctors suggested that Tracy have a feeding tube inserted into her stomach since it was likely to provide her with more nutrients, leading to less weight loss, and possibly the administration of more effective pain medication. Her parents, however, chose to spoon-feed her, believing that the tube would be the first step toward artificially prolonging her life, which they rejected.

Despite her profound disabilities, Tracy appeared to enjoy music, being with her family, and going to the circus. She was able to listen to the radio, which she could activate by pushing a special button. She also loved to be rocked by her parents.

Tracy had undergone painful surgeries on her muscles and spine and, when she suffered a dislocated hip, doctors scheduled more surgery that would have removed a piece of her thigh bone and left the upper and lower portions of her leg connected only by muscle and other soft tissue. A recovery period of one year was expected. More surgery would be needed from time to time to deal with the pain Tracy suffered in her other joints. At about this time, Robert Latimer concluded that his daughter's life was not worth living and, one Sunday, while the rest of the family was at church, he ended Tracy's life by placing her in his truck and running a hose from the exhaust pipe into the cab of the vehicle. At first, Mr. Latimer told the police that Tracy had passed away in her sleep; he later confessed to having killed her to end her life of pain.

Robert Latimer was tried for first-degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder. The judge sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence provided by the Criminal Code: life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 10 years. However, on appeal, it was held that interference in the jury selection process by the Crown had resulted in an unfair trial, and a new one was ordered.

After a second jury trial, Mr. Latimer was once again found guilty of second-degree murder. However, the presiding judge granted him a constitutional exemption from the Criminal Codes minimum penalty provisions and sentenced him to one year in prison, to be served at his farm, followed by a year of probation. Mr. Latimer appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had made two mistakes: first, by refusing to allow the jury to consider the defence of necessity (and not so ruling until after the defence had argued it in their closing argument) and, second, by misleading the jury into thinking that it would have some input regarding the sentence. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, replacing it with the Codes mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for ten years. Robert Latimer appealed both his conviction and "sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The accused himself faced no imminent or any other kind of peril. And though Tracy suffered greatly, there was no emergency or imminent dangerous situation to suggest that death was an alternative. Had her parents opted for the feeding tube, Tracy's health might have improved.

It was not reasonable for the accused to believe that further surgery amounted to imminent peril, especially when better pain management was possible.

There is no air of reality to the contention that Mr. Latimer had no reasonable legal alternative to breaking the law. He clearly could have continued to struggle to help Tracy live her life, as best he could, and to manage her pain as well as possible (through use of the feeding tube, for example) or alternatively, by placing her in a group home. Though unappealing, the options were nevertheless reasonable legal alternatives.

It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which the harm avoided would be proportionate to the harm inflicted when homicide is involved. There would have to be harm that was "seriously comparable in gravity to death." Here, there was no risk of such harm. Tracy's death was immeasurably more serious than the pain from an operation. "Killing a person-in order to relieve the suffering produced by a medically manageable physical or mental condition is not a proportionate response."

Thinking/Inquiry

1. At the first trial Justice Noble attempted to clarify the difference between mercy killing and premeditated murder, granting Latimer a constitutional exemption from the minimum sentence of 25 years with no chance of parole for 10 years. He explained that, for Latimer, imposing the minimum sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The law, he said, recognizes that the moral culpability or the moral blameworthiness of murder can vary from one convicted offender to another. In his opinion, the murder of Tracy Latimer was a rare act of homicide that was committed for caring, altruistic reasons. That is why, for lack of a better term, this is called compassionate homicide.

2. The defence of necessity in the criminal law incorporates the moral principle that an individual who is not morally culpable for the offence should not be punished. Such a common law defence to a crime applies only under circumstances where the individual had no other alternative but to break the law and, by breaking the law, committed a lesser harm than he or she would have done by observing it.

The harm in this case was the ending of a life; that harm was immeasurably more serious than the pain resulting from Tracy's operation that Mr. Latimer sought to avoid. In considering the defence of necessity, we must remain aware of the need to protect life, victim dignity, and equality of all the individuals affected by the act in question. The fact that the victim in this case was disabled rather than able-bodied does not affect our conclusion that the three requirements for the defence of necessity had no air of reality here.

Robert Latimer

Could the case of young Tracy Latimer set a dangerous precedent that would endanger the rights and lives of all people?

  1. Discuss what you feel (morally) are the facts, the problems and finally the outcome from the Supreme Court of Canada.
  2. Do you see a difference between mercy killing and premeditated murder? What are the significant differences? If there are differences what could be introduced to elevate some of the problems associated.
  3. You are now a judge or a member of the Supreme Court of Canada on a new alternative sentencing that could be involved with these kind of cases. Chart your positives or negatives of each of your possible sentences.

Perhaps lawmakers should reexamine some of the options suggested when the quality of life and dignity are in question.

4. How and why did the handicapped or disabled people voice their outrage after the initial sentence was passed down? Do they have any differences from you and I. Explain both sides of the situation.
Tracy Latimer was a 12-year-old girl afflicted from birth with a severe form of cerebral palsy.Mr. Latimer confessed to having killed her to end her life of pain. her some other sites you can check for more information.