R. v. Burns (R.H.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);
67 W.A.C. 161
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Howard Burns (respondent)
(23115)
Indexed As: R. v. Burns (R.H.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
April 14, 1994.
Summary:
The accused appealed his convictions for indecent assault and sexual assault.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 15 B.C.A.C. 264; 27 W.A.C. 264, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the convictions.
Courts – Topic 583
Judges – Duties – Re reasons for decisions – [See both
Criminal Law – Topic 4684
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4684
Procedure – Judgments and reasons for judgment – Sufficiency of – The accused was charged with indecent assault and sexual assault of a young girl – The Crown’s case relied almost solely on the girl’s testimony – The accused did not testify – There were a number of reasons to doubt the girl’s credibility – The trial judge gave only brief oral reasons for judgment – The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge should have applied the doctrine of reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused or, at least, should have explained why the evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt – The court stated that the reasons for judgment did not permit the court to determine whether the trial judge properly directed himself to all the evidence and legal questions – The Supreme Court of Canada restored the conviction – The Court of Appeal should not have interfered where it conceded there was sufficient evidence to reasonably support a conviction.
Criminal Law – Topic 4684
Procedure – Judgments and reasons for judgment – Sufficiency of – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “failure to indicate expressly that all relevant considerations have been taken into account in arriving at a verdict is not a basis for allowing an appeal under s. 686(1)(a). This accords with the general rule that a trial judge does not err merely because he or she does not give reasons for deciding one way or the other on problematic points … The judge is not required to demonstrate that he or she knows the law and has considered all aspects of the evidence. Nor is the judge required to explain why he or she does not entertain a reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt. Failure to do any of these things does not, in itself, permit a court of appeal to set aside the verdict.” – See paragraph 17.
Evidence – Topic 4023
Witnesses – Credibility – Oath-helping – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the rule against oath-helping holds that evidence adduced solely for the purpose of proving that a witness is truthful is inadmissible. … The rule finds its origins in the medieval practice of oath-helping; the accused in a criminal case or the defendant in a civil case could prove his innocence by providing a certain number of compurgators to swear to the truth of his oath … In modern times, it is defended on the ground that determinations of credibility are for the trier of fact, and that the judge or jurors are in as good a position to determine credibility as another witness.” – See paragraph 28.
Evidence – Topic 7018
Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Special knowledge and experience – What constitutes – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the general rule is that expert evidence is admissible to furnish the court with scientific information which is likely outside the experience and knowledge of the judge and jury … The use of experts to explain human behaviour may fall within this rule. The behaviour of a person who has been systematically abused is one example of a matter on which experts may assist.” – See paragraph 24.
Evidence – Topic 7052
Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Child abuse – [See
Evidence – Topic 7018
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 134, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Smith (D.A.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 991; 111 N.R. 144; 109 A.R. 160, affing. 95 A.R. 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. MacDonald, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 665; 9 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Béland and Phillips, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398; 79 N.R. 263; 9 Q.A.C. 293, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 394; 29 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 76 C.R.(3d) 329; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 25].
Khan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 115; 9 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Wilband, [1967] S.C.R. 14, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Rosik (1970), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 351 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Phillion, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 18; 14 N.R. 371, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Wild (D.J.) (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 241; 40 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(a) [para. 12].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Delisle, R.J., Children as Witnesses: The Problems Persist (1994), 25 C.R.(4th) 39, p. 44 [para. 29].
Counsel:
Alexander Budlovsky, for the appellant;
Henry S. Brown, Q.C., for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Alexander Budlovsky, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
Cram & Hood, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 26, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On April 14, 1994, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by McLachlin, J., in both official languages.
