International Law

R. v. Lewis and Renaud

Things getting out of hand.

It’s not easy being a cabbie, especially with what’s happening with gas prices. In this case one Monsur Moohidine took the accused home to their apartment building. They said they had to go in to get the fare. It was clear they weren’t planning on coming back. Angry words and threats were expressed by Mr. Renaud. Mr. Moohidine locked the doors and began driving to the police station. Mr. Renaud began punching him in the head while Ms. Lewis tried to choke him from behind (”However, Mr. Moohidine indicated that this did not bother him much. He dismissed this interference by Ms. Lewis as minor in nature because she was a woman.”)

Mr. Moohidine acted without lawful authority in attempting to take Lewis and Renaud to the police station without their consent. There were not grounds for a citizen’s arrest. This led to the question of whether a person unlawfully confined may use force and assault his captor to gain release.

It seems to me that in the circumstances, Mr. Renaud and Ms. Lewis were certainly entitled to make efforts to get out of the vehicle and away from Mr. Moohidine. However, the question is whether they were entitled to assault Mr. Moohidine?

Sections 34 through to and including 43 of the Code provide for certain and specific situations where a person may use force. These include self defence against unprovoked attack or aggression, preventing an assault, defence of property and child correction.

Clearly we are not dealing with the defence of property, or protection to prevent assault or child correction. The only provision that would have application is self defence in the case of an unprovoked attack as provided for in sections 34 and 37. Insofar as I have found Mr. Moohidine did not first assault Mr. Renaud, these sections also have no application. Accordingly, there was no basis in law to assault Mr. Moohidine.

…

Finally, notwithstanding the fact that it would be reasonable for Mr. Renaud and Ms. Lewis to want to secure their release, having been unlawfully confined for non payment of the fare, the assault cannot be justified. Mr. Renaud and Ms. Lewis were aware Mr. Moohidine was taking them to the police. They were only a few blocks away from the downtown core and he told them where they were going and they proceeded in that direction. On these facts, the assault cannot be justified and was disproportional to what might have been a reasonable effort to otherwise exit from the taxi.

Though this may not have been a case where an assault was reasonable, I do think it’s possible to imagine someone unlawfully confined being justified in using force against their captor to escape. Even perhaps in a situation similar to this.

And a closing remark:

I would add, however, the following cautionary remark. This is not the first case I have had where a taxi driver in the City of Windsor has elected to redefine his route of travel in the direction of the local police authority when encountering a passenger that is not desirable. While I have no knowledge in regard to whether this is a policy or pattern that has developed in the taxi community, it is certainly cause for concern and should not be encouraged.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on May 31, 2008 (boomark / email).