CRIMES, COURTS, AND COMMENTARY
Interviews, current events, recommendations, and more --
all geared to the criminal law student community.
all geared to the criminal law student community.
CLSA Staff
APRIL: R v J.D., 2022 SCC 15 The issue in R v J.D was whether s. 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code) requires that trial judges inquire into whether an accused’s consent to file evidence on a new trial as a transcript is voluntary, informed, and unequivocal. Under this provision, when a new trial commences before judge alone and there was no adjudication or verdict rendered, the new judge must commence trial as if no evidence had been taken. In this case, when the original trial judge fell ill, both counsel agreed to file the testimony of one witness as a transcript. The Court held that s. 669.2(3) concerns jurisdiction, not evidence, and accordingly that the application of the regular rules of evidence persists. The trial judge was right to accept the testimony as a transcript, and absent reason to engage in further inquiry, was not required to do so. Nevertheless, the trial judge has residual discretion to inquire on their own initiative where trial fairness might be undermined. Other cases this month: R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11: The search of a home upon arrest does not violate s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). R v Tim, 2022 SCC 12: The Police erred in searching the accused’s vehicle when they saw a prescription drug, but the evidence was admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter. R v Dussault, 2022 SCC 16: The Police violated s. 10(b) of the Charter by not allowing a lawyer to see the accused. MAY: R v Brown, 2022 SCC 18 Mr. Brown was charged with breaking and entering, mischief to property, and aggravated assault following the consumption of alcohol and magic mushrooms. Relying on a defence of automatism, Brown was acquitted at trial. Although s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code denies the defence of automatism during instances of extreme self-induced intoxication, the trial judge held that this provision violates the principles of fundamental justice and presumption of innocence, and that these violations are not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. As such, the provision was unconstitutional. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the trial court, holding that Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional. R v Bisonnette, 2022 SCC 23 The Court held that s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which permits the sentencing of an offender to consecutive parole ineligibility periods, is unconstitutional. A unanimous Court found that the provision violates s. 12 of the Charter and cannot be saved under s. 1, because a parole ineligibility period that exceeds an offender’s life expectancy is inconsistent with human dignity. Therefore, in cases involving multiple first-degree murders, the parole ineligibility period is 25 years, retroactive to when the provision was enacted in 2011. Other cases this month: R v J.F., 2022 SCC 17: When the delay for a trial is reasonable, a delay for a retrial is considered separately R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19: In this companion case to R v Brown, the Court clarifies horizontal stare decisis. JUNE: R v J.J., 2022 SCC 28 In R v JJ, the Court had the opportunity to consider the constitutionality of ss. 278.92 to 278.94 of the Criminal Code— provisions contested among Crown counsel and members of the defence bar since their enactment in 2018. These provisions set out additional procedural barriers for the introduction of evidence relating to a complainant’s prior sexual history when the records are in possession of the accused. The Majority rejected the two accused’s contention that the provisions violate their ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights. In doing so, they explicitly recognized the need to remove barriers deterring victims of sexual offences from speaking out. Other cases this month: R v Goforth, 2022 SCC 25: Court restores second-degree murder convictions in death of a foster child. JULY:
R v Lafrance, 2022 SCC 32 The accused, a 19-year-old Indigenous male, was suspected of murder. In March, a team of armed officers executed a search warrant on his home. In April, the accused confessed to killing the victim upon interrogation. The Court held that the accused was detained during the March incident. The police failed to inform the accused his right to counsel upon detention and, therefore, his s. 10(b) rights were violated. The Court held that the accused had a right to reconsult with his lawyer during the April interrogation because the accused’s circumstances fell within the third category outlined in R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 – reason to question the detainee’s understanding of his rights. Therefore, his s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated, and the evidence obtained must be excluded. R v Kirkpatrick, 2022 SCC 33 This appeal addressed whether condom use is relevant to the presence or absence of consent under s. 273.1(1) of the Criminal Code. The appellant was charged with sexual assault after he had sexual intercourse with the complainant without a condom, although she had expressly conditioned her consent on condom use. The Court held that when consent to intercourse is conditioned on condom use, condom use forms part of the “sexual activity in question” and there is no subjective consent to the physical act of intercourse without a condom under s. 273.1(1). This would best accord with Parliament’s intention to protect the complainant’s autonomy and the reality that intercourse with or without a condom are two distinct physical acts. Other cases this month: R v Sundman, 2022 SCC 31: Accused is guilty of constructive murder even though the victim was shot after escaping his kidnappers.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Want to contribute? Pitch an idea to CLSA Blog Editors Ben Elhav & Nik Khakhar at [email protected] & [email protected].
|