Lien vers la décision
[34] L’une des fonctions premières du juge qui préside un procès par jury est de donner des directives appropriées. Les directives sont appropriées lorsque le juge qui préside le procès remplit l’obligation qui est la sienne d’aider les jurés à comprendre les enjeux et à leur faire comprendre, le plus simplement, mais aussi le plus efficacement possible, les principes de droit qui doivent être appliqués aux faits qu’ils ont choisi d’accepter ou d’écarter.
[35] C’est ainsi que le juge David Watt, maintenant juge à la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, écrit ce qui suit :
Jurors must understand the factual issues that require decision, the legal principles that apply to those issues, and the evidence introduced at trial on those issues. Some of those legal principles relate to the essential elements of the offence charged and other offences that may be included in it.
[36] Il suggère l’approche suivante :
The developmental approach can be applied to final instructions by taking advantage of the basic structure of any crime charged.
Every criminal offence consists of at least two essential elements. Each essential element requires a factual determination by the jury about whether that essential element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury’s decision about each essential element has implications for further decisions and, in time, the final verdict.
Applying the developmental approach in organizing and composing final jury instructions involves several steps.
The first step is to divide the crime charged into its essential elements, then to reduce those essential elements into point-form statements that reflect their substance. After that, these point-form statements of the essential elements should be converted into a series of factual questions for the jurors to consider.
The next step involves the composition of the relevant legal instructions that govern the jurors’ response to each question. These instructions should include directions on what is required in law to establish the essential element to which the question relates, and explanations of any defence, justification or excuse relating to that essential element that has an air of reality to it.
After composition of the relevant legal principles that control the jurors’ response to a question, the trial judge should proceed to a fair, balanced and accurate review of the significant parts of the evidence relevant to the issues framed by the question, and relate that evidence to the issue and the positions of the parties, so that the jurors can appreciate the value and effect of the evidence.
Once the evidentiary review has been completed and the relationship of the evidence to the issue framed by the question made clear, the trial judge should move to instructions about the findings available to jurors in response to the question and the consequences of those findings for further deliberations and final verdicts. The jurors’ response to each question determines their next step in the deliberation process.
The questions, along with the available responses and their verdict consequences can be incorporated into a decision tree for jurors to use during their deliberations. A decision tree is a deliberation aid, a forensic flow chart that repeats each question posed in final instructions, shows the available responses, and displays the consequences of the available answers for further deliberations and final verdict.
[37] Cette approche relative aux directives finales, sans être la seule qui puisse remplir le rôle fonctionnel dévolu aux directives au jury, est parfaitement adéquate et tout autant efficace puisqu’elle aide les jurés à bien comprendre l’ensemble des aspects de la situation qui leur est soumise et des décisions qu’il faut rendre. Les modèles de directives préparés par le Conseil canadien de la magistrature sont aussi souvent utilisés par les juges qui président les procès par jury.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire