Aidan Seto
United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7
Notes
Rafay and Burns are Canadian citizens.
Background Info
In July 1994, Atif Ahmad Rafay’s father, mother, and sister were found beaten to death in Bellevue, Washington. Glen Sebastian Burns, Rafay’s high school friend in British Columbia, admitted to being present at Rafay’s house on the night of Rafay’s family’s death. Burns and Rafay stated that they were not involved in the murder as they had gone out that night. After defending themselves, Burns and Rafay were able to return to Canada. However, upon further investigation by undercover RMCP officers, Burns and Rafay were arrested and returned to the United States. This case examines the intersection between US and Canadian law, specifically whether assurance should be considered prior to the carrying out of extradition.
Section 15 of the Extradition Act
S.15 of the Extradition Act of Canada is a law that protects Canadian citizens from external laws imposed by legalities within other countries. In the case of United States v. Burns, the Canadian legislation argued that “the death penalty would not be imposed, or, if imposed, would not be carried out.” This argument is upheld by the respondents’ (Burns and Rafay) Canadian status as this ensures that they adhere to Canadian legislation and not external laws.
Section 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
S.6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms highlights Canadian citizens' movement within Canada's land. This section states how Canadian citizens can freely move out and into Canada. However, there are limitations to these mobility rights as they can also be bent to cater to certain security or criminal contexts.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
S.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was also brought into discussion as s.7 outlines how “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” This links to the case of United States v. Burns as enabling the extradition where Burns and Rafay had the probability of having their life taken away from them would contradict Canada’s statement, “the death penalty has been rejected as an acceptable element of criminal justice.”
Holding/Conclusion
The court held that the Canadian legislation had the upper hand when it came to ensuring the safety of the respondents, “the Minister is constitutionally bound to ask for and obtain an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed as a condition of extradition.”
Bibliography
Supreme Court of Canada “United States v. Burns.” United States v. Burns - SCC cases, 2001.
Government of Canada “Government of Canada.” Guide to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, December 13, 2022.
Wilner, Benjamin. “Human Rights Day: Revisiting United States v. Burns, 2001 SCC 7, 20 Years Later.” Human Rights Day: Revisiting United States v. Burns, 2001 SCC 7, 20 years later, December 10, 2021.
コメント