| Reference Re Ng Extradition |
Article Index for Reference Re |
Website Links For Reference |
Information AboutReference Re Ng Extradition |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT REFERENCE RE NG EXTRADITION | |
| 1991 in law | |
| canadian immigration and refugee case law | |
| canadian charter of rights and freedoms case law | |
| supreme court of canada cases | |
|
BACKGROUND Charles Chitat Ng was in the custody of the State of California charged with 12 counts of murder, kidnapping, and burglary for which he potentially faced the death penalty. Before his trial he managed to escape and flee to Canada. On July 6 , 1985 in Calgary he was caught Shoplifting , and while resisting arrest, he shot a police officer in the hand. The United States successfully petitioned the government to have Ng extradited. Ng submitted a Habeas Corpus request, which was denied, followed by an application to the Alberta Court Of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, all of which were denied. In response to requests to gain an assurance from the United States government not to seek the death penalty, the Minister of Justice submitted the following questions to the Supreme Court: #''Is s. 25 of the Extradition Act, to the extent that it permits the Minister of Justice to order the surrender of a fugitive for a crime for which the fugitive may be or has been sentenced to death in the foreign state without first obtaining assurances from the foreign state that the death penalty will not be imposed, or, if imposed, will not be executed, inconsistent with ss. 7 or 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?'' # ''If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is s. 25 of the Extradition Act, a reasonable limit of the rights of a fugitive within the meaning of s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982?'' RULING The Court answered both questions in the negative. Majority The Majority was written by Gérard La Forest with Claire L'Heureux-Dubé and Charles Gonthier concurring. The Court followed its judgement as stated in '' Kindler V. Canada '' where it considered the same question and found that there was no Charter violation. Dissent Antonio Lamer , John Sopinka , Peter Cory on both questions. Cory concluded that without any assurance there would be a clear violation of s.12 that could not be saved under s.1. |
|
|