 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
I suppose some elaboration is in order.
This is part of the sentence imposed by a provincial court judge in Moncton N.B., on the gentleman who decided to lead the Mounties on a bit of a chase after driving off with some student’s car one evening. When apprehended, a Mountie threatened to taser him. Jeremy R. Weldon backed into the Mountie’s groin area and fired a robust one, adding the salutation, “Here’s a present for you.” He then did an encore for another officer, expressing his magnanimity by muttering something like, “Here’s another one for you.”
Among theft and driving-related charges, the man was charged with assaulting police officers.
The judge noted these events were “unusual and unique.” I would say this is an understatement. Some present. Not something the police would want for Christmas. And I doubt they’re available on Amazon.
We can certainly say the police officers had his back.
My question is: Should the gentleman have pleaded guilty to the assault charges? I see a couple of defence arguments.
First, a crime requires actus reus i.e., an act, and mens rea, i.e., intention. We certainly have the act here — a couple of real rippers. But do we have the intention? After all, Weldon did describe his gracious performance as presents. There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to commit an act of aggression. Perhaps he was just sharing his natural resources. I would say he overlooked a solid defence. This argument unfortunately is now gone with the wind.
Another argument would have been the threatened tasering. This perceived threat likely got his stomach grumbling, forcing him to go into a flight or fight mode. I am not a doctor but most likely there is some expert out there, some professor from Harvard in Boston, a.k.a., Beantown. You see where this is going. This prof has no doubt researched this common bodily function. Another missed defence opportunity fleeted away.
Then we may also have a Moncton specific defence: Magnetic Hill. This is that inclined road where you put your car into neutral, and it drives up the hill by itself. Is that not also “unique and unusual”? We all know that the law should be applied equally and fairly to everyone. I say Weldon or his lawyer should have stood up at the arraignment and said, “Your Honour, we plead not guilty. We plead and rely on the defence of Magnetic Hill.” Good chance the judge would have responded, “Of course, cruel and unusual. Charges dismissed.”
According to various sources, Weldon apologized and told the judge he was drunk and embarrassed and called his behaviour childish.
Though the guilty plea stands, there may be some merit — some — in appealing the sentence. In addition to a $1,200 fine and a driving ban for one year, it included a curfew. How does this punishment fit the crime? He had better stay home if he’s going to cook with gas? Also, the 75 hours of community service part of it does not break down how many hours must be performed for each of the charges. This is confusing and unfair. How many hours for theft? For impaired driving? For releasing a concealed weapon? I can see a Notice of Appeal reading in part:
The grounds of appeal are:
(1) The learned trial judge erred in that the sentence levied as it relates to community service is ambiguous, cruel and egregious as it conceivably imposes a period of 75 hours of community service for tooting.
As the conviction is recent, the appeal option may still be up in the air.
I believe that Jeremy Robert Weldon took an unnecessary fall in this case. Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done. And I would add heard to be done. To me, the outcome here just does not pass the smell test.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.