A bloody knife, a tire iron, and an oddly-masculine distraught mother: all were assembled in the School boardroom last week, in the name of justice – albeit mock justice.

In the School trial, ‘Regina v. Hudson,’ ‘Michael Hudson’ is charged with first-degree murder of his mother-in-law, ‘Margaret Willis’ and an attack on her husband, ‘Jack.’ His defence? He was sleepwalking when he drove to her house and killed her, and thus not responsible. The Justice Education Society mock case simulates an actual 1987 trial that made Canadian legal history when sleepwalking was raised as a murder defence (Regina v. Kenneth James Parks).

 

In this, their final trial of the year, three different Law 12 classes role-played as defence lawyers, Crown prosecutors, witnesses, and defendant/s, with presiding judges played by staff volunteers. Black-robed lawyers cross-examined witnesses, including ‘Constable Kramer’ in RCMP uniform, doctors in lab coats, and ‘Sadie Jablonski,’ the accused’s ‘mother,’ cheekily played by all male students decked out in long, flowered dresses and scarves!

 

The 70-minute trial required participants to familiarize themselves with key roles, and the issues, arguments, strategies, and etiquette of a real courtroom.

 

“Mock trials are a form of experiential learning and give students an opportunity to deepen their understanding of the law and its role in society, develop advocacy skills, and adopt critical thinking strategies,” said Law 12 instructor, Mr. Loiselle. “Skills include learning to clearly express their ideas, argue logically, and accurately interpret the written word. Those are tangible skills to take with you into the world.”

 

So, was ‘Hudson’s’ confessed attack an unplanned, unconscious activity? Or was it – as a bewigged ‘Dr. Mondale’ argued – “possibly done in a “hysterical dissociating state?” Did he act “voluntarily and with wrongful intent?” And could someone really drive 21 kilometres to the murder site while sleepwalking?

“The hardest part was to think about questions that would match the purpose of what the defence was trying to prove – how to be as effective as possible,” said defence counsel, Jerry C. (Lonsdale’s). “I felt sympathetic to both sides because, even if someone is sleepwalking, they still have to face consequences.”

“We had to show not just whether he had intentions, like by showing his previous criminal charges and his character, but mental issues, and also arguing he wasn’t asleep,” said Crown prosecutor, Michael C. (Ripley’s). “It’s not the wrong choice, just that we should have maybe focused more on proving he wasn’t asleep. Twenty-one kilometres is a long way to drive on memory alone.”

Like the real life case, one of the three Shawnigan trials resulted in a jury’s “not guilty” verdict, with an order for medical treatment. Obviously, our jury wasn’t swayed by the introduction of the Crown’s very realistic weapons: a red-dyed 'bloody' kitchen knife and a shiny tire iron!

Thanks to Mr. Loiselle for making these exercises so educational and so real!

 

“In Canada, when a person is accused of criminal wrongdoing, he or she or she does not have to prove innocence. It is the task of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt… In Canada we only convict and punish as criminals persons who have acted voluntarily and with wrongful intent. “ Justice Education Society.

 

*Fact: Canadian author June Callwood’s (1924-2007) novel, “The Sleepwalker,” was based on the Parks case.