 (Bio) Patrick Healy specializes in criminal law and teaches and publishes widely on procedure, evidence, sentencing, comparative criminal law, and international criminal law. He has been involved in law reform for many years, serving as advisor to governments and various non-governmental organizations and, on several occasions, testifying before the House of Commons and the Senate on pending legislation. Professor Healy is a member of the Comité permanent en droit criminel of the Barreau du Québec. He is also an editor of the Canadian Criminal Law Review. Professor Healy was a member of a committee of inquiry appointed under the Judges Act to inquire into the tenure of a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec. He is a member of the International Association of Penal Law and of the International Association of Prosecutors.
February 24, 2000
 When the UN comes calling
It's not every day that a newborn country comes knocking, looking for help in writing its laws. And Patrick Healy is acutely aware of how privileged he was to be asked by the Eritrean government to help write its criminal code and its code of criminal procedure.
It was three years ago when the law professor received a call from the United Nations Development Program. At first, he thought they'd made a mistake. "I was sure they wanted Patrick Glenn," said Healy.
Apr 8, 1999 Professor Patrick Healy, from the Faculty of McGill Law, has been appointed to a special inquiry committee by the Canadian Judicial Council. The council was asked by federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan to create the inquiry to examine the case of Quebec Superior Court judge Robert Flahiff. Flahiff was recently convicted of laundering drug money. Such inquiries are often set up before a federally appointed judge is fired.
July 29, 2002
Trial by jury not applicable to today, says lawyer
Is there any better way to prosecute those who are members of gangs that operate outside the law? Not really, says McGill University law professor Patrick Healy. "The alternative to a megatrial or a joint trial is individual trials. And of the two options, the second is the worst," he said. "Imagine, for example, having to call and recall the same witnesses. And the trials, well, they last endlessly." Constitutional lawyer Julius Grey goes even further. "I'd get rid of juries in these cases altogether. Having judges alone hear these cases would lead to more justice, more reliability, and there would be less chance of current public opinion affecting a decision. "Listen, the whole idea of 12 of your peers was invented in the 13th century to ensure that noblemen would be tried by noblemen, burghers by burghers and so on. It's not terribly applicable today."
search McGill
|
BBC
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
;)
;)
get player
Bloomberg
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}