Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Guy Lafleur Acquitted


Manatee-X

Recommended Posts

I guess Canada's legal system sucks as much as ours. It's ridiculous that he was let off the hook because he claimed he thought the curfew applied only to time and not location. What happened to the days when people were expected to know the rules they are supposed to follow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess Canada's legal system sucks as much as ours. It's ridiculous that he was let off the hook because he claimed he thought the curfew applied only to time and not location. What happened to the days when people were expected to know the rules they are supposed to follow?

I don't wanna start a political/legal debate here but I guess it all depeneds on your surname and/or family background ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? I mean, I didn't expect him to go to prison, but didn't he basically say one day that his son never left home and then the next that he drove him to a hotel?

He did commit perjury, there is no denying or defending that - its fact... and that usually comes with some sort of punishment. I agree, that it usually wouldnt be jail time, but for most people it would have been something - not full acquittal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did commit perjury, there is no denying or defending that - its fact... and that usually comes with some sort of punishment. I agree, that it usually wouldnt be jail time, but for most people it would have been something - not full acquittal.

Usually a fine.

But I'm sure Guy can afford that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually a fine.

Actually, I think its more often jail time. Section 132 of the Criminal Code and reads:

"Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."

Im sure it depends on the severity of the crime in question, but the cases I can remember mostly ended with (minor) jail time.

But I'm sure Guy can afford that.

Im sure he could too, but he wont because by acquitting him, there can be no fine. An acquittal "formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned."

They are saying he's innocent of perjury - somehow, the court has found he didn't commit perjury, even though his testimony is 100% clear that he did. Baffling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did commit perjury, there is no denying or defending that - its fact... and that usually comes with some sort of punishment. I agree, that it usually wouldnt be jail time, but for most people it would have been something - not full acquittal.

As the article alluded to, the court ruled that because he supposedly didn't know that he was breaking the law that he hadn't actually perjured himself. Guy claims to have thought the curfew only applied to time, and not location. The court bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the article alluded to, the court ruled that because he supposedly didn't know that he was breaking the law that he hadn't actually perjured himself. Guy claims to have thought the curfew only applied to time, and not location. The court bought it hook, line, and sinker.

more like they would of hated being hated by millions of habs fans :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMAZING PLAYER!!

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer

:lol: He does get himself into hot water time & time again......................But he's my hero. :lol::D

GUY,GUY,GUY.#10

Im not particularly surprised.

For some strange reason....I am....I really thought he wouldn't beat this one......probation,something along those lines.

I will not get into the whole issue regarding *if it was the average joe* saga.......we know. ;)

he supposedly didn't know that he was breaking the law that he hadn't actually perjured himself.

See what I mean.

They are saying he's innocent of perjury - somehow, the court has found he didn't commit perjury, even though his testimony is 100% clear that he did. Baffling.

Got me. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the article alluded to, the court ruled that because he supposedly didn't know that he was breaking the law that he hadn't actually perjured himself. Guy claims to have thought the curfew only applied to time, and not location. The court bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Im shocked though that that can be used as a defense. What happened to "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (which loosely translates as "ignorance of the law is no excuse")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im shocked though that that can be used as a defense. What happened to "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (which loosely translates as "ignorance of the law is no excuse")

I am glad that Guy was cleared. You are right that ignorance of the law is not a defence. That is not what is claimed here. It was found that Lafleur did not testify with malice in the statements made in court. True the facts he gave were not correct, but he did not lie, he simply did not know the truth. If he had known the terms of the order were broken, his testimony is perjury. It would have been perjury had he understood the situation correctly then misrepresented the facts. To give inncorrect testimony, by it's self, and without malice IS NOT PERJURY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify: The fact that Guy Lafleur did not understand the boundries of the court order, did not negate the offence of breaking the order, BUT the fact that Guy Lafleur did not understand the boundries of the order did negate the implcations that his tesimony was perjury.

In other words, he thought he was telling the truth. True the order was violated, and not understanding the order IS NOT a defence to the VIOLATION.

The Appealant Court members did not dismiss the violations of the order, they dismissed the implication that Guy Lafleur knew about the violations and WITH MALICE mislead the court members during trail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify: The fact that Guy Lafleur did not understand the boundries of the court order, did not negate the offence of breaking the order, BUT the fact that Guy Lafleur did not understand the boundries of the order did negate the implcations that his tesimony was perjury.

In other words, he thought he was telling the truth. True the order was violated, and not understanding the order IS NOT a defence to the VIOLATION.

The Appealant Court members did not dismiss the violations of the order, they dismissed the implication that Guy Lafleur knew about the violations and WITH MALICE mislead the court members during trail.

Good point. The question is - will they go the next step and charge him with aiding and abetting his son breaking curfew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. The question is - will they go the next step and charge him with aiding and abetting his son breaking curfew?

I doubt it. Because of the press given to this matter, a crown's attouney or a magistrate isn't likely to presue this futher. A major factor here is that because the higher court has handed down the conclusion that Lafleur did not act with "malace of forethought" therefore a lower court would need to find he did (and lower court magistrates do not usually challange superior court findings unless the severity warrents such. It does not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it. Because of the press given to this matter, a crown's attouney or a magistrate isn't likely to presue this futher. A major factor here is that because the higher court has handed down the conclusion that Lafleur did not act with "malace of forethought" therefore a lower court would need to find he did (and lower court magistrates do not usually challange superior court findings unless the severity warrents such. It does not)

Yeah, but then we're into the case of "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Having "malice of forethought" doesn't apply to the act of driving his son to the motel, just the perjury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but then we're into the case of "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Having "malice of forethought" doesn't apply to the act of driving his son to the motel, just the perjury.

You are right. Lafleur imo may have committed an offence when driving his son to the meet up with his girlfriend, and the 'didn't know' defence is no defence. I do not claim that the higher courts ruling outrules that Lafleur is accountable for this, but I do feel it is unlikely for a lower court to bring an action when the Appeals Court didn't. It is (I beleive) in the Appealant Courts power to make such a recommendation. The Appeals Court members are 3 judges, and they reviewed the conviction, dismissed it, and did not make any recommendations for futher action. The crown is not likely going to bring this matter back because simply, it is not as servre of an offence because the higher court ruled the he didn't mean to. Motive doesn't matter to much in the finding of guilt. It does however play high in the matter of penality for the offence. The crown's case might be easy enough to prove but it is unlikely that much of penilty would be awarded.

I think the best thing for Lafleur to do is to donate the money that would have been ordered in spite of this ruling. It might not hurt to double it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Lafleur imo may have committed an offence when driving his son to the meet up with his girlfriend, and the 'didn't know' defence is no defence. I do not claim that the higher courts ruling outrules that Lafleur is accountable for this, but I do feel it is unlikely for a lower court to bring an action when the Appeals Court didn't. It is (I beleive) in the Appealant Courts power to make such a recommendation. The Appeals Court members are 3 judges, and they reviewed the conviction, dismissed it, and did not make any recommendations for futher action. The crown is not likely going to bring this matter back because simply, it is not as servre of an offence because the higher court ruled the he didn't mean to. Motive doesn't matter to much in the finding of guilt. It does however play high in the matter of penality for the offence. The crown's case might be easy enough to prove but it is unlikely that much of penilty would be awarded.

I think the best thing for Lafleur to do is to donate the money that would have been ordered in spite of this ruling. It might not hurt to double it!

Here here. That way he's still 'cleared' and the youth organisation still gets what is probably a much-needed donation. Everybody wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...