Introduction
Criminal Proceedings are based on the presented facts that enable formulation of credible judgment by the presiding officers. Evidently, cases of criminal nature are complicated and require superior understanding of the presented issues by the parties involved in the suit. In practice, cases of criminal nature are becoming common in various jurisdictions. This is evident for example in the case of R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R that was presented before an appellate judge following the accused application. The appellate made the application claiming that his mutual human rights were getting infringed on. He stated that the principle of receiving fair justice and treatment as prescribed in the Canadian human rights protection act was under abuse. The act gives the accused the presumption element of freedom that ensures that they are treated fairly before the verification one’s guilt.
He sated that the constitutional provision that the accused are presumed innocent unless proven guilty ought to apply in his case. The appellate was contesting the decision by the crown that represented the abused child to request the judge to issue a ruling that would enable the teenager to attest behind camera. The judge granted the crown the plea stating that the young individuals are bound to be affected with “face to face” attestation as recognizable under section 486 (2.1) of the nations rules. The law recognizes that teenagers cannot be treated in the same way as adults since that may compromise their ability to give clear testimony. This paper gives detailed information based on the sexual criminal case providing its facts, the issues involved, the outcome and the decision of the high court.
The issues
The main contention of the accused appeal was based on judges ruling that allowed the young boy to testify behind camera. The judge made the ruling upon application by the young boy’s crown stating that children are protected under the law to make behind camera attestation since they may not be able to withstand live courtroom engagement. The ruling was faulted by the accused who asserted that the decision was infringing on his rights under section 7 of the human rights act. The act states that the accused persons should be treated fairly and are allowed to perform cross examination to the complainants in pursuit of innocence. In particular, the major issues in the case were clearly dealt with as presented and credible rulings were made by the judge. The critical issue that gave rise to the case was the criminal act of sexual abuse of the young boy by the accused.
Variably, the constitutionality of the application of section 486 (2.1) of the criminal code was a major contention with the accused stating that its application infringes on his fundamental right. The validity of sec 7 of the human rights code was also sought with the accused stating that his right to live hearing and cross examination of the witnesses is protected under the provision. It is significant to note that every party in criminal suites or any case are protected under clear provisions that ensure that their human dignity is upheld before proof of being guilty to the offences.
The outcome and decision of the court
The court heard and determined the issues that were under contention professionally with superior analysis of the particular sections of the law. Every issue was examined to ascertain their credibility based on the accused complains. The outcomes of the issues were cordial and were based on the rule of law as established. In the request by the crown for the child to testify behind camera, the judge provided a view that was guided under legal principles. He granted the applicant the authority that directed the young boy to testify behind camera. This was to enable the child to provide clear account of events with limited fear. He stated that sec 486 (2.1) of the criminal code provides children the right to make testimonies behind cameras. The act recognizes the rights of the children with an aim of ensuring that they undergo fair trial. This is also to ensure that they testify under favorable conditions to enable provision of the true account of events by the judge.
On the violation of the accused rights under section 486 (2.1) of the human rights charter, the judge dismissed the appellate application based on legal grounds. The court held that everyone had rights under the law and that the acceptance of behind camera attestation was aright granted to young individuals under the law with asset objective to obtain credible and factual details. The section recognizes that children are shy and should not be treated in a similar form as adults. This may limit their capacity to providing accurate accounts of events. The court also held that the accused rights were not infringed under section 7 of the law that provides offenders the presumption of innocence before proven guilty and the freedom to cross-examining the witnesses. The court held that testifying behind camera does not deprive the accused the opportunity to making credible defense. They also stated that the sections of the law were not in conflict affirming that every section gives clear guideline on how the parties rights are protected.
Opinion on the Ruling
Indeed, everyone is protected under legal human rights that should not receive any infringement. In the process of pursuing for justice, fairness for both parties is paramount. In this case, that involved an adult with a child who was under defilation, the judge’s decision to grant a behind camera attestation was noble and sought to serve the right of the minor. This was to enable as explained by the court the realization of factual accounts of events from the child who was under sexual abuse. Although, the accused is subjected to certain rights, he should have been aware that the child also had human rights protection. His rights were not infringed upon but sought to recognize that young people often react differently to “face to face” confrontation. This explains the need for their protection since they cannot be treated as adults who are manipulative. Therefore, the rulings were in consonance with the legal provisions that had no valid contention as portrayed by the accused. The judge’s decision was absolutely accurate and right.
Factual comparison of the two cases
Common elements in the cases
The cases present related criminal act of sexual harassment or defilement of minors where the accused made certain applications with claims that their rights were under infringement. In both cases, the accused contentious issues were dismissed under legal provisions that view everyone equally to ensure fairness. The facts as recorded present’s similar actions that was shocking. In the case of R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. the complainant stated that the accused spent time with him swimming for one week before proposing to offer him a western fair London trip. He narrated that before the fair, he woke up feeling the appellate hands on him making sexual advances. His advances were in similar form as the Queen v. L (D.O.) 1993 4 SCR 419 case where the accused sexually assaulted the teenager. On appeals, the accused in the cases lost on their applications with the court in the first case stating that the child was protected under section 486 of the criminal code to testify behind camera. He also stated that that the accused implication that his rights were under compromise was not factual. In the second case, the accused lost on the appeal on the judge decision to allow video showing as part of evidence by the complainant. The court found it admissible to allow such evidence if they hold substantive evidence.
Opinion based on the two cases
Clearly, the law in both cases was applied fairly since all parties involved in a legal suit hold human, rights that protect them from any form of abuse. The cases of child defilement have been increasing hence the need to formulate strong, legal processes that ensure that children rights are protected. The dismissal of the applicants were done in accordance with the law and was meant to recognize the children’s inferiority in giving “face to face” accounts of events. Therefore, I believe the process and rulings made by the courts was credible and fair.