Une conduite moralement répréhensible ou lâche n'est pas synonyme de complicité à l'infraction

R. v. Downey, 2009 CanLII 60682 (ON SC)

Lien vers la décision

[22]        In looking at the pieces of evidence of Mr. Roberts’ involvement, taken individually or as a whole, they are simply insufficient to raise his participation past speculation and into the realm of logical inference that he was a s.21 party.   As utterly morally reprehensible and cowardly was Mr. Roberts’ conduct  in standing by while a young woman was tortured and degraded, I find it does not meet the criterion of s. 21 of the Criminal Code.  As Dickson J. (as he then was), said in R. v. Dunlop, 1979 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881:

                        Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to ground culpability.  Something more is needed: encouragement of the principal offender; an act which facilitates the commission of the offence, such as keeping watch on enticing the victim away, or an act which tends to prevent or hinder interference with accomplishment of the criminal act, such as preventing the intended victim from escaping or being ready to assist the prime culprit…