R. V Burns Case Brief
R. v Burns case Brief
Case Facts
The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia, posing as a mob boss, it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They threw their cloths away and took a bath to wash away the blood. The accused claim that the alleged confession was a lie to gain the confidence of who they thought was a Mob Boss (para.11). They were to be extradited to the United States, where if convicted could face the death penalty. The defendants appealed the extradition to the Minster of Justice.
Burns ' argument and Ministers Findings
The accused claimed to the Minister that their section 6(1) (right to remain and return to Canada) charter rights would be violated if they were extradited, and that as a result the Minister should consider if the defendants could be tried in Canada (para.16). The respondents also claimed section 7 (fundamental justice) and section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) of the charter would be violated if extradited. The appellants differentiated their case from R. v. Kindler and Ng because they were Canadian citizens, while Kindler and Ng were not. They claimed that Canada does not have the right to send its citizens away with the possibility of never returning contrary to 6(1) of the charter (para.17). The respondents also claim that their age at the time of the alleged offences, 18, should be taken into consideration. The Minister rejected the claim of banishment, because the purpose of the treaty was to allow criminals to face criminal proceedings and once proceedings have been finished the respondent 's could return to Canada (para.19) He also rejected the age argument because they
Case Facts
The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia, posing as a mob boss, it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They threw their cloths away and took a bath to wash away the blood. The accused claim that the alleged confession was a lie to gain the confidence of who they thought was a Mob Boss (para.11). They were to be extradited to the United States, where if convicted could face the death penalty. The defendants appealed the extradition to the Minster of Justice.
Burns ' argument and Ministers Findings
The accused claimed to the Minister that their section 6(1) (right to remain and return to Canada) charter rights would be violated if they were extradited, and that as a result the Minister should consider if the defendants could be tried in Canada (para.16). The respondents also claimed section 7 (fundamental justice) and section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) of the charter would be violated if extradited. The appellants differentiated their case from R. v. Kindler and Ng because they were Canadian citizens, while Kindler and Ng were not. They claimed that Canada does not have the right to send its citizens away with the possibility of never returning contrary to 6(1) of the charter (para.17). The respondents also claim that their age at the time of the alleged offences, 18, should be taken into consideration. The Minister rejected the claim of banishment, because the purpose of the treaty was to allow criminals to face criminal proceedings and once proceedings have been finished the respondent 's could return to Canada (para.19) He also rejected the age argument because they