Features

 News Desk
 News Briefs
 News Summaries
 Columnists
 Sports
 Editorial
 Arctic arts
 Readers comment
 Find a job
 Tenders
 Classifieds
 Subscriptions
 Market reports
 Northern mining
 Oil & Gas
 Handy Links
 Construction (PDF)
 Opportunities North
 Best of Bush
 Tourism guides
 Obituaries
 Feature Issues
 Advertising
 Contacts
 Archives
 Today's weather
 Leave a message


NNSL Photo/Graphic

NNSL Logo .
Home page text size buttonsbigger textsmall text Text size Email this articleE-mail this page

Supreme Court to hear killer's appeal

Carolyn Sloan
Northern News Services
Published Monday, December 1, 2008

NUNAVUT - A Nunavut man convicted of killing a Cape Dorset RCMP officer seven years ago will have his appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Salomonie Jaw, who was convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Const. Jergen Seewald, made an application to the high court after the Nunavut Court of Appeal rejected his appeal in May.

Seewald was killed in 2001 while responding to a domestic dispute between Jaw and his common-law spouse at their Cape Dorset home.

While the Supreme Court has dismissed three of Jaw's grounds for appeal, it is obligated to hear a question of law raised by Justice Peter Martin, a dissenting judge in the Nunavut Court's decision.

Martin maintained that trial judge John Vertes had erred when he instructed the jury that evidence of Jaw's behaviour following the shooting could be used to determine his intent when the shot was fired.

"With respect, that evidence does not necessarily lead to the conclusion the appellant intended to kill the officer," he said in explaining his dissension. "Indeed, in my opinion, it does not support that conclusion at all."

Given that the jury was tasked with determining whether the shooting was accidental or intentional, Martin argued there may have been a different verdict had Vertes not given such an instruction.

According to Jill Copeland, executive legal officer for the Supreme Court, Jaw's hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 13, although the court will likely reserve its judgment.

It could take anywhere from a few days to a year after the hearing for the judgment to be made public, she added.