Question: If he was convicted, why does the Post use the term, “Alleged”?
National Post:
Megan O’Toole | Nov 13, 2012 8:32 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 13, 2012 10:20 PM ETMore from Megan O’Toole | @megan_otoole
Global News screen grab; handout Randjida Khairi died on March 18, 2008, drowning in her own blood after her husband slit her throat and stabbed her five times in the torso. Her husband, Peer Khairi, has been convicted of murdering her.
TORONTO — After failing to observe a single day of their father’s second-degree murder trial, Peer Khairi’s children want to support him now, a Superior Court judge heard Tuesday.
At a sentencing hearing for the Afghan immigrant — convicted of murder this weekend in the alleged honour killing of his 53-year-old wife — defence lawyer Anthony La Bar told the court to expect letters from several of Khairi’s six children.
The reason it is an “alleged” honour killing is that there is no crime of honour killing on Statute. We would not [possibly in a civilised Western country think killing your wife or daughter is honourable therefore would never have a reason to codify this.
The UK uses the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the The Homicide Act 1957 to guide us in criminal law. I do not suspect the law in Canada is much different. The man was convicted of homicide, the (mens rea) or mental reasoning may have been “honour” but that is alleged not substantive in law.
Sorry, I did a post grad in Law in London a few years back and still use the knowledge even though I don’t work in it.