Out-of-town newspaper reports of the February 10, l986 decision to acquit relied entirely on the Canadian Press. CP apparently issued two reports, one written from the pro-abortionists’ point of view. This led to such headings as “Pro-choice groups protect judge’s bias” (Hamilton Spectator); “Pro-choicers irate over acquittal” (London free Press); “Acquittal of abortion protestors will lead to intimidation: Activist” (Montreal Gazette. The other variety was more moderate with headings such as “Clerics acquitted in abortion clinic padlocking” (Winnipeg Free Press). Both kinds, however, contained one of two errors, or sometimes both.
The first error was the idea that the clergymen had been released on “defence of necessity.” For counsel to have attempted to use that defence would have been trying to flog a dead horse. Defence of necessity has been ruled out both for Morgentaler (Ontario Appeal Court) and for the picketers (Judge Meen’s judgment). The defence, therefore, was “legal justification.”
A second point alleged that Judge DiCecco also said, “that it is still undecided whether crimes are being committed in the clinic, pending a decision by the Supreme Court.” This view was incorporated, for example, in the Globe and Mail’s editorial “An odd acquittal” (February 12, 1986).
The judge said nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he was clear and precise about the illegal activities at the Morgentaler clinic. In the transcript of the Judge’s verdict, page four, one reads:
On the basis of Doctor Scott’s testimony in this case, the Court has no hesitation to state that the actions of the occupants of 85 Harbord Street constitute a prima facie case of a violation of Section 251 of the Criminal Code. Further that the defendants’ belief of such breach of Section 251 of the Criminal Code was not mere speculation on their part.
and on page nine:
… a citizen has still the right to take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of an indictable offence, which per se is a breach of the Queen’s peace. It is a right which has not been specifically abrogated in any statute and this Court is not prepared to state it has been abrogated by implication. The fact that the most senior Crown law officer of this Province has advised peach officers that he would not prosecute any additional charges until the final disposition of the original charges does not mean that no offence is taking place. It simply means that he would stay judicial process.
It remains to be seen whether, on February 25 or days following, three people declared not guilty will face jail for not complying with a restraining order.
