R. v. Ruzic
Encyclopedia
R. v. Ruzic, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on the common law defence of duress
and constitutionality of the defence under section 17 of the Criminal Code of Canada
. The Court held that section 7
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
requires that the defence of duress be available to an accused even when they were not under immediate threat of bodily harm at the time the offence was committed.
n who lived in Belgrade
with her mother. A man had threatened to harm her unless she assisted him by smuggling heroin into Canada
. The man stalked her for some time and began threatening her, eventually escalating to violent assaults. Ruzic eventually complied and flew to Canada. She was arrested at Toronto Pearson International Airport
for importing heroin.
At trial she pleaded that she only committed the crime under duress. A defence of duress, under section 17 of the Criminal Code, is available only when a person "commits an offence under compulsion by threats of immediate death or bodily harm from a person who is present when the offence is committed".
Ruzic claimed that she had no other option and that both her and her mother's life were at risk. She also claimed that she could not go to the police because she believed them to be corrupt and would be of no help. Expert testimony validated this belief that Yugoslav citizens were generally untrusting of the police and their ability to protect them from rampant militias.
Nonetheless, her claim failed on the grounds that she was not under a threat of "immediate death or bodily harm" and that the man was not "present when the offence was committed".
Ruzic challenged section 17 of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional as it violated her right to security of person
under section 7 of the Charter.
The trial judge agreed with Ruzic and held that the defence duress was available to her and consequently she was acquitted. The appeal was dismissed on appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
LeBel J., writing for a unanimous Court, held that section 17 of the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter on the basis that its requirements were too restrictive by requiring presence and immediacy. The requirements meant that the defence was unavailable in situations where the threat is to a third party or involves harm in the future.
LeBel agreed with the trial judge's finding that a common law defence of duress that did not have the same restrictions was also available. In the common law defence the accused must make a reasonable effort to combat the threat, the severity of the criminal conduct must be proportional to the threat, and the accused must have no reasonable alternative of escape.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on the common law defence of duress
Duress
In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner...
and constitutionality of the defence under section 17 of the Criminal Code of Canada
Criminal Code of Canada
The Criminal Code or Code criminel is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law"...
. The Court held that section 7
Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
requires that the defence of duress be available to an accused even when they were not under immediate threat of bodily harm at the time the offence was committed.
Background
Marijana Ruzic was 21 year-old YugoslaviaYugoslavia
Yugoslavia refers to three political entities that existed successively on the western part of the Balkans during most of the 20th century....
n who lived in Belgrade
Belgrade
Belgrade is the capital and largest city of Serbia. It is located at the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers, where the Pannonian Plain meets the Balkans. According to official results of Census 2011, the city has a population of 1,639,121. It is one of the 15 largest cities in Europe...
with her mother. A man had threatened to harm her unless she assisted him by smuggling heroin into Canada
Canada
Canada is a North American country consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Located in the northern part of the continent, it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west, and northward into the Arctic Ocean...
. The man stalked her for some time and began threatening her, eventually escalating to violent assaults. Ruzic eventually complied and flew to Canada. She was arrested at Toronto Pearson International Airport
Toronto Pearson International Airport
Toronto Pearson International Airport is an international airport serving Toronto, Ontario, Canada; its metropolitan area; and the Golden Horseshoe, an urban agglomeration that is home to 8.1 million people – approximately 25% of Canada's population...
for importing heroin.
At trial she pleaded that she only committed the crime under duress. A defence of duress, under section 17 of the Criminal Code, is available only when a person "commits an offence under compulsion by threats of immediate death or bodily harm from a person who is present when the offence is committed".
Ruzic claimed that she had no other option and that both her and her mother's life were at risk. She also claimed that she could not go to the police because she believed them to be corrupt and would be of no help. Expert testimony validated this belief that Yugoslav citizens were generally untrusting of the police and their ability to protect them from rampant militias.
Nonetheless, her claim failed on the grounds that she was not under a threat of "immediate death or bodily harm" and that the man was not "present when the offence was committed".
Ruzic challenged section 17 of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional as it violated her right to security of person
Security of person
Security of the person is a basic entitlement guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is also a human right explicitly mentioned and protected by the Constitution of Canada, the Constitution of South Africa and other laws around the...
under section 7 of the Charter.
The trial judge agreed with Ruzic and held that the defence duress was available to her and consequently she was acquitted. The appeal was dismissed on appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Opinion of the court
On April 20, 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the Crown appeal.LeBel J., writing for a unanimous Court, held that section 17 of the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter on the basis that its requirements were too restrictive by requiring presence and immediacy. The requirements meant that the defence was unavailable in situations where the threat is to a third party or involves harm in the future.
LeBel agreed with the trial judge's finding that a common law defence of duress that did not have the same restrictions was also available. In the common law defence the accused must make a reasonable effort to combat the threat, the severity of the criminal conduct must be proportional to the threat, and the accused must have no reasonable alternative of escape.