When I read, earlier on, the judge's explanation of the three essential elements that
each had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a verdict of guilty of criminal negligence, I was reasonably certain that, based on the evidence presented(so far as I could ascertain - the tweets and news summaries were fairly sparse and lacking in much detail), the jury would not convict.
Was Savoie responsible for the death of the boys? Yes, obviously. But was it a
criminal responsibility? That was more difficult to ascertain. In order to show criminal negligence, a person must show "wanton and reckless" disregard for the safety of the victims, and have failed to take the precautions that "a reasonable person" (the mythical "everyman") would take.
This is where the evidence for the Crown broke down. Both the Crown and defense called reptile experts, both of whom agreed, that in their opinion, a snake that size would have been unable to get through the vent in question. They knew. of course, that the snake had done this, but both expressed incredulity and amazement. And these were reptile experts with decades of handling large and dangerous snakes!
Savoie, while obviously a reptile fancier, was no expert; no evidence suggested he had any special training or schooling in reptile care or behaviour. It would not be logical to assume he would be a better judge of whether a snake could escape in a certain circumstance than experts in the field. The experts did say, that as a matter of course, they would secure any openings that were in a snake's enclosure. But, they were experts - not ordinary citizens. It's what an
ordinary person would think and do that is the standard the law holds up as the bar to meet.
Other testimony, including that of the boys' mother, testified to Savoie's care and concern for he boys, his being a good friend and parent, and so on. Several witnesses said that Savoie did not feel the vent posed any threat because the snake was much too large to get through it.
As the defense said, Savoie was wrong in this threat assessment. But being wrong is not necessarily a crime.
One thing that did not get addressed in the trial (but IMO should have been), was the responsibility of the federal wildlife service that handed over the snake to Savoie to care for, without any follow-through or provision of any assistance/advice/resources in proper care and management of this dangerous species. They dumped the snake on him, and being a snake lover, he kept it for 11 years with no incidents, though as expert witness Johnson testified, its habitat was inadequate for the snake's welfare. Even animal rescue services around here investigate potential owners of dogs or cats, do a home visit, and - most important - follow up afterwards to make sure the placement is working out. The feds did
none of this. Proper management could have obviated this tragedy, and IMO the CWS bears some of the moral (albeit not legal) responsibility.
There was apparently some very questionable behaviour on the part of the RCMP that was under publication ban until now. I will wait until I hear more details before commenting, but it sounds like the sort of thing which brings law enforcement into disrepute and I don't like to see that happening.
Here's one news report on the acquittal. Further details will no doubt come out over time.
http://www.cp24.com/news/jury-finds...-n-b-boys-1.3152459?google_editors_picks=true
