Protesters and security forces had invaded the streets of Quebec on June 8, 2018.
June 25, 2020 13h46
Updated at 14h18
Port weapon for a purpose dangerous: a protester G7 acquitted by the superior Court
Lynda Forgues, who had been convicted of having had in his possession a weapon for a purpose dangerous in a demonstration held in Quebec city during the g-7, has just been acquitted by the superior Court.
Ms. Forgues was arrested on June 8, 2018 in an alley to the north of the rue Crémazie, for participating in an unlawful assembly during the demonstration, which was held earlier on the Honoré-Mercier avenue, where a couch had been set on fire.
The search conducted by the police found in his backpack a small bottle of spray canin brand Bodyguard as well as various scarves, a gas mask and two masks of protection.
The protester had appeared the same day in the municipal Court of Québec for participating in an unlawful assembly, committed mischief on a couch, embarrassed, and the employment of a good in blocking the Honoré-Mercier and had in his possession a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.
Lynda Forgues has undergone his trial in march 2019 (together with any other person) under the first and fourth heads, accusations of wrongdoing, and to have interfered with the use of property which has been removed on request of the public ministry. The judge Jacques Ouellet concluded that the illegal arrest of the protester, but declared it guilty of carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.
The possession of spray canin is not illegal in itself, but considering the context of the manifestation of the end of the morning of June 8, 2018, “the Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the only intended use is to use the object against the police”, concluded the judge Ouellet.
The superior Court does not hear as well. According to the judge, Louis Dionne, “there is nothing in the evidence offered by the prosecution shows that the appellant had the intention to use them in any manner the repellent against the police officers or resist arrest, which would have enabled the trial judge to infer subjectively the purpose dangerous”.
Judge Dionne points out that during his arrest, Lynda Forgues was not “aggressive”, “he was rather a collaborator” and that she did not have the repellent in the hands, which was later found in his backpack.
“In these circumstances, it is not reasonable to infer that the appellant, taken in a back alley, alone in front of several police officers, had the intention of putting out his repellent backpack to take to the police,” added the magistrate, in his decision earlier this week.
“In the eyes of the Court, the trial judge has committed an error of law in its analysis of the intentional element of the offence of having in his possession a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. It rendered a verdict to be unreasonable based on inferences not supported by the evidence,” concludes the judge of the superior Court before paying Lynda Forgues.