A couple named Mylène Désilets and Stéphane Marcoux from Namur (roughly 20 minutes north of Montebello) tried to run an OPCA straw man defence against charges of running a grow op in their house and garage - naturally, they had 2 loaded rifles 'just in case':
R. c. Désilets, 2020 QCCQ 8641 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jc6hr (decision December 4th, 2020 in Gatineau, QC)
Attended trial, demanded to be called by first names, left court room, came back, raised a straw man defence, refused to take seats at defence table at front. Judge says "I smell Meads v Meads" and adjourned 2x and encouraged them to hire a lawyer but they said they couldn't find one who would represent them (judge says go figure if they want the lawyer to run an OPCA defence).
Convicted on all counts including production, possession for the purpose of trafficking, negligent storage of firearms, improper storage of firearms, possession of firearms w/out a licence.
Congrats to prosecutors Me Anne-Frédérique Coulombe and Me Marie-Claude Daoust for having to put up with the nonsense and getting the job done despite it all.
POUR CES MOTIFS, LA COUR DÉCLARE les accusés coupables sur les chefs suivants :
- Chef 1 : production de cannabis
- Chef 2 : possession de cannabis en vue d’en faire le trafic
- Chef 4 : Entreposage négligent d’une arme à feu (à savoir une carabine Remington Marlin MM25334K)
- Chef 5 : Entreposage négligent d’une arme à feu (à savoir une carabine Remington Marlin MM25345K)
- Chef 6 : Entreposage d’armes à feu en contravention d’un règlement
- Chef 7 : Possession d’armes à feu sans être titulaire d’un permis
Quebec couple run straw man fail against grow-op and gun charges
Moderator: Burnaby49
-
- Swabby
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:23 pm
-
- Trivial Observer of Great War
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:44 pm
Re: Quebec couple run straw man fail against grow-op and gun charges
Stéphane Marcoux was part of Pierre Daoust's Surety of the Person group for awhile. He was booted by the Lord High Scott Duncan for not being sufficiently servile. The details of the offence were that he actually asked for an explanation of one of Scooter's theories since he claimed that he didn't understand one part.