R. v. Cooper (1977), 14 N.R. 181 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Cooper
Indexed As: R. v. Cooper
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz
and de Grandpré, JJ.
March 8, 1977.
Summary:
This case arose out of a charge of conferring a benefit on a government official contrary to s. 110(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused conferred benefits on a government official who was at the time processing an application for a DREE grant from the accused’s company. The trial judge told the jury that it must decide whether the accused intended the benefits to be conferred with respect to the accused’s dealings with the government. The trial judge directed the jury that the rule in Hodge’s case respecting circumstantial evidence had no application to a case turning upon the intention of the accused. The jury convicted the accused.
On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury with respect to circumstantial evidence and the rule in Hodge’s case.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal was set aside and the conviction of the accused was restored. The Supreme Court of Canada approved the trial judge’s charge to the jury. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the rule in Hodge’s case applies only to the identification of the accused as being the person who committed the crime and that Hodge’s case has no application to a case turning upon the intention of the accused – see paragraph 19.
Criminal Law – Topic 408
Offences against the administration of law and justice – Corruption of officials – Charge of conferring a benefit on a government official contrary to s. 110(1)(b) of the Criminal Code – Evidence of intent to confer a benefit – The accused conferred benefits on a government official who was at the time processing an application for a DREE grant from the accused’s company – The sole issue was whether the accused intended the benefits to be conferred with respect to the accused’s dealings with the government – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the conviction of the accused – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a direction by the trial judge to the jury that the rule in Hodge’s case had no application to a case turning on the intention of the accused – See paragraphs 4 to 35.
Evidence – Topic 305
Circumstantial evidence – Rule in Hodge’s case – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the rule in Hodge’s case applies only to the identification of the accused as being the person who committed the crime and that Hodge’s case has no application to a case turning upon the intention of the accused – See paragraph 19.
Evidence – Topic 305
Circumstantial evidence – Rule in Hodge’s case – The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the formula in Hodge’s case as an inexorable rule of law in Canada – See paragraphs 35 and 46.
Criminal Law – Topic 418
Offences against the administration of law and justice – Corruption of officials – Charge of conferring a benefit on a government official contrary to s. 110(1)(b) of the Criminal Code – Jury charge – The trial judge charged the jury that it was sufficient if the benefit conferred “was related in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, to Cooper’s dealings with the government” – The Supreme Court of Canada approved the jury charge even though s. 110(1)(b) did not contain the words “directly or indirectly” – See paragraphs 36 and 37.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Paul (1976), 27 C.C.C. 1, 4 N.R. 435, refd to. [para. 11]; folld. [para. 35].
Hodge’s case (1838), 2 Lewin C.C. 227, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Mitchell, [1964] S.C.R. 473, folld. [para. 19]; refd to. [para. 43].
Sherras v. DeRutzen, [1895] 1 Q.B. 918, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Pierce Fisheries, 3 N.S.R. 196569 1, [1971] S.C.R. 5, refd to. [para. 21].
John v. The Queen, [1971] S.C.R. 781, folld. [para. 35]; refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Bagshaw, [1972] S.C.R. 2, folld. [para. 35].
McGreevy v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1973] 1 All E.R. 503, folld. [para. 46].
Comba v. The King, [1938] S.C.R. 396, refd to. [para. 46].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 110(1)(b) [para. 2].
Counsel:
D.H. Doherty, for the appellant;
J.J. Robinette, Q.C., for the respondent.
This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 17, 1976. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on March 8, 1977, and the following opinions were filed:
RITCHIE, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 40.
LASKIN, C.J.C., dissenting – see paragraphs 41 to 49.
MARTLAND, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., concurred with RITCHIE, J.
JUDSON and DICKSON, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.
