It can be hard to believe at times, but two decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada released Thursday in the case of a horrific slaying are proof that, despite its pitfalls, technicalities and disappointments, the integrity of the judiciary is sound.
Nina Courtepatte’s life came to a humiliating, horrifying and premature end on the night of April 3, 2005 thanks to a group of media-dubbed “mall rats” who lured her from West Edmonton Mall on the pretence of attending a bush party. Instead, members of the group raped, beat and eventually killed her at Edmonton Springs Golf Course, just west of Big Lake.
Of the three youth and two adults involved, one pleaded guilty, three were found guilty of numerous offences at trial and one was acquitted. It was the acquittal of Michael Briscoe, an adult, which created a public backlash against the judicial system. At trial, the judge found Briscoe did not know what was going to happen at the golf course and acquitted him of involvement. The Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because the trial judge had not explored the legal tenet of “wilful blindness” — that Briscoe knew what was going to happen but did not ask further questions because he simply didn’t want to know and in doing so, abetted Courtepatte’s murder. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed, arguing Briscoe’s own statements to police indicated he had his suspicions of what was going to happen but deliberately chose not to find out more. It was a particularly difficult case for the Crown — appealing an acquittal is incredibly difficult and must meet standards more rigorous than those of someone found guilty in court. Briscoe will now go back to trial on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping.
In the case of Joseph Laboucan, it was the defence that had launched the appeal, arguing the trial judge’s decision, in which the judge stated he doubted the truth of Laboucan’s testimony because he had an incentive to lie, the Supreme Court restored convictions of first-degree murder, aggravated sexual assault and rape against Laboucan. It argued that, given Laboucan’s defence team had accused every principal witness in the case of lying to shield themselves, the judge acted appropriately in granting the same presumption to Laboucan.
It is the third Supreme Court victory in the case. The court had previously upgraded a conviction of manslaughter against Stephanie Rosa Bird, who was found to have hit Courtepatte with a wrench and held her down during the sexual assault, to first-degree murder.
It was an emotional case for the entire region, one that revealed a seamy underbelly in some of Edmonton’s young people with talk of vampires and sacrifices. The initial pitfalls, with Briscoe’s acquittal, Laboucan’s appeal and Bird’s original conviction were disappointing to Courtepatte’s family and the community as a whole. While Briscoe now faces another trial, the fact the Crown had the temerity to pursue an appeal speaks to how badly it wants both justice and closure in this case.
The world of law can sometimes be confusing, emotional and disappointing. It is a world that is not error-free, but the checks and balances in place help ensure that those errors can be re-examined and potentially reversed. Victims and defendants don’t always get the verdict they feel they deserve, but in this case Courtepatte’s memory and her family’s pain has not been dismissed. The courts more often than not get it right. These decisions merely reinforce that fact.
