The Incredible Case Of Ms. Liu

The following story is about a court case in which a humble chinese c-store operator fought back and won against the gigantic Quebec state bureaucracy, a real source of inspiration and pride for all convenience store owners in Quebec.

Ms. Yu Jie Liu used to own and operate the Dépanneur Soleil, a c-store located at 130 Castonguay Street in Saint-Jérôme. Nothing luxurious we shall say: her direct neighbor was a hot-dog stand.

In August 2007, inspectors from the Ministry of Health and Social Services come to her store. An underage inspector is able to buy tobacco and Ms. Liu is being taken to court.

She comes by herself and face the tribunal. And she can barely speak French!

Here is a summary of the case and judgment:

• On August 15, 2007, Mrs. Andrée Duquette, an inspector, parked her vehicle near the Dépanneur Soleil at 1:09 pm. She is accompanied by an assistant inspector, Miss Estelle Casaubon, in order to make a purchase. Before entering the convenience store, Ms. Duquette takes two pictures of Miss Casaubon. These demonstrate that the assistant-inspector looks like an underage. Ms. Duquette gave Miss Casaubon ten dollars and told her to buy a pack of Prime Time cigarillos. She makes sure that Miss Casaubon has nothing in her pockets. She also ensures that she is under the age of 18 by checking her ID. She is then 16 years old.

• Ms. Duquette is the first to enter the premises and pretends to be a customer.

• Miss Casaubon subsequently enters and buys a Prime Time pack of cigarillos with vanilla flavor. She enters at 1:13 pm inside the depanneur and comes out at 1:13 pm as well. No ID is required by the clerk.
  After the purchase, the assistant-inspector leaves the convenience store.

• Mrs. Duquette stays inside. She buys a pack of chewing gum then leaves.

Ms. Liu testified in defense. An official Mandarin-French interpreter attends the court.

• She says that at lunchtime, there is a lot of people coming in and out. The events occurred right after this busy hour. She first noticed Mrs. Duquette who was heading for the magazine display. She produces a photo that shows a magazine display located to the right of the clerk’s counter. Mrs. Duquette stumbles there for a moment and exchanges glances with her while touching magazines. Through these shady actions, Ms. Liu concludes that this person does not intend to buy a magazine.

• Five minutes later, a middle-aged lady arrives and buys milk.

• Thereafter, a young person comes in and approaches her counter. Mrs. Duquette also approached and sticks her body against the counter. Ms. Liu is concerned that Ms. Duquette is in a propitious position to steal some chocolate bars from that counter. Ms. Liu drops a photo showing the counter and the small items.

• Ms. Liu focuses on Ms. Duquette who has unusual behaviors. She says customers do not usually get so close to the counter.

• Ms. Liu is determined to prevent any type of robbery in her convenience store.

• The young person asks for a Prime Time cigarillo with vanilla flavor.

• Ms. Liu confuses this young person with another, to whom she would previously have asked and validated her ID. This person usually buys the same brand and the same flavor. She admits that she did not pay all the attention necessary to this young person, but she explains that it is because of the actions of Mrs. Duquette.

The Judgment (excerpts):

• Proof of the prosecution does not disclose any form of prior warning or other grounds for the investigation of this convenience store.

• Under the circumstances, this is not a bona fide investigation but rather a random test, which is an abuse of process.

• Secondly, the conduct of the principal inspector went beyond the mere offer to commit an offense. Her suspicious behavior inside the convenience store is inadequate and out of acceptable standard. This evidence was not contradicted by the prosecution in rebuttal evidence.

• The Tribunal finds that a reasonable person, acting as a sales clerk on August 15, 2007, in the presence of a client who acts as a person who is about to steal, would have had all of his attention focused on her and would have been less vigilant in applying other equally important rules of conduct. The principal inspector, through her behavior, has contributed to and facilitated the commission of the offense by acting as a person who distracts attention. This scenario is commonly observed in clothing shops where a customer occupies the salesperson while a second person hides clothes in her bag.

Consequently, the Court of First Instance accepts the defense of entrapment and orders the end of procedures.

Presided by the Honourable Judge Nathalie Duperron, March 1, 2010 (see full judgment here, in French only).

This is the first time, to our knowledge, that this type of inspection has been recognized as police entrapment. Congratulations, Ms. Liu!