R. v. Harper (1982), 40 N.R. 255 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Harper
Indexed As: R. v. Harper
Supreme Court of Canada
Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Lamer, JJ.
January 26, 1982.
Summary:
The accused police officer was convicted of assault causing bodily harm during a scuffle with a drunken youth, whom he was attempting to arrest. The accused’s appeal was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Ritchie, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Criminal Law – Topic 4957
Appeals – Indictable offences – New trials – Grounds – Misapprehension of evidence – A trial judge convicted a police officer of assault causing bodily harm during a scuffle with a drunken youth, whom he was attempting to arrest, after expressly excluding from consideration the evidence of four witnesses – Although the four appeared to have observed the whole scuffle, the trial judge excluded their evidence because they did not observe the moments when the officer alleged to have struck the youth – The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, because the trial judge erroneously excluded the evidence of the four witnesses.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. MacDonald, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 665; 9 N.R. 271, consd. [para. 5].
Ungaro v. The King, [1950] S.C.R. 430, consd. [para. 5].
Gauthier v. The King, [1931] S.C.R. 416, consd. [para. 19].
R. v. Warner, [1960] S.C.R. 144, consd. [para. 26].
Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co. Ltd., [1919] S.C. (H.L.) 35, consd. [para. 27].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 25(1) [para. 13]; sect. 618(1)(b) [para. 15].
Counsel:
D. Owen-Flood and Mel Hunt, for the appellant;
W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for the respondent.
This case was heard on May 21, 1981, at Ottawa, Ontario, before MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 26, 1982, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
ESTEY, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 14;
RITCHIE, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 15 to 28.
MARTLAND, DICKSON, BEETZ, McINTYRE and LAMER, JJ., concurred with ESTEY.
