R. v. Braich (A.) (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);
268 W.A.C. 1
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.031
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ajmer Braich and Sukhminder Braich (respondents)
(27843; 2002 SCC 27)
Indexed As: R. v. Braich (A.) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
March 21, 2002.
Summary:
The accused were charged with the first degree murder of one person, three counts of attempted murder of three other persons, and alternative counts of aggravated assault on those same three persons.
The trial judge, sitting without a jury, acquitted the accused of first degree murder but convicted them of manslaughter. He also convicted them of aggravated assault instead of attempted murder of the other three victims. The accused appealed the convictions.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Southin, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in 136 B.C.A.C. 76; 222 W.A.C. 76, allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial on indictments for manslaughter and aggravated assault. Southin, J.A., delivered supplementary dissenting reasons (see 140 B.C.A.C. 27; 229 W.A.C. 27). The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the convictions.
Courts – Topic 583
Judges – Duties – Re reasons for decisions – The accused were allegedly involved in a drive-by shooting – One person was killed and three were injured – At issue was identification – The accused were convicted of one count of manslaughter and three counts of aggravated assault – The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions – The court held that the convictions were “unsafe” because the trial judge’s reasons did not sufficiently deal with, inter alia, the possibility of collusion, frailties in the eyewitness identification evidence and inconsistencies – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient – Identification was the focus of the trial judge’s reasons – There was no doubt what he decided and how he reached his decision – He accepted the identification evidence as credible and reliable – He resolved difficulties with the evidence against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt – His analysis of the identification evidence was sufficient to satisfy the functional requirements of providing a decision that was reasonably intelligible to the parties and provided a basis for meaningful appellate review of the correctness of the decision.
Criminal Law – Topic 4684
Procedure – Judgments and reasons for judgment – Reasons for judgment – Sufficiency of – [See
Courts – Topic 583
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5241
Evidence – Witnesses – Identification – Eye witness identification – [See
Courts – Topic 583
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Sheppard (C.) (2002), 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 284 N.R. 342 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 2].
R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 39].
Counsel:
W.J. Scott Bell, for the appellant;
Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C., and Nikos Harris, for the respondent Ajmer Braich;
William B. Smart, Q.C., for the respondent Sukhminder Braich.
Solicitors of Record:
The Ministry of Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
Peck and Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Ajmer Braich;
Smart and Williams, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Sukhminder Braich.
This appeal was heard on June 21, 2001, by Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 21, 2002, Binnie, J., delivered the following judgment for the Court in both official languages.
