R. v. R.M.G. (1996), 81 B.C.A.C. 81 (SCC);
132 W.A.C. 81
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
R.M.G. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(24709)
Indexed As: R. v. R.M.G.
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
October 3, 1996.
Summary:
The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his stepdaughter when she was 12 years old. The accused appealed, alleging that the trial judge inadequately charged the jury respecting the theory of the defence and erred in his exhortation when the jury members became deadlocked.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 57 B.C.A.C. 81; 94 W.A.C. 81, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada, L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Criminal Law – Topic 4357
Procedure – Jury charge – Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence – During the charge at a sexual assault trial, the judge indicated that the sexual assault was established and the sole issue for the jury was whether the accused was the perpetrator – The defence objected to the direction – The judge recharged the jury and instructed them that they had to determine whether a sexual assault had in fact occurred – The accused appealed, arguing that the charge and recharge did not adequately deal with the theory of the defence respecting fabrication – The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this ground of appeal – The court held that the recharge was sufficient to rectify the error committed in the original charge – See paragraphs 9, 10.
Criminal Law – Topic 4364.1
Procedure – Jury charge – Directions to expedite deliberations – [See all
Criminal Law – Topic 4391.1
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4391.1
Procedure – Jury charge – Deadlocked jury exhortation – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature and aim of an exhortation and set out the principles respecting exhortations – See paragraphs 16 to 26 – The court offered an example of one way in which an exhortation could be given to a jury – See paragraph 48.
Criminal Law – Topic 4391.1
Procedure – Jury charge – Deadlocked jury exhortation – In a deadlocked jury exhortation at a sexual assault trial, the judge made reference to the public expense and inconvenience of a second trial and to the possible benefit of a verdict to the accused and witnesses and suggested that the minority might want to reconsider what the majority was saying – Fifteen minutes later the jury returned a guilty verdict – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the reference to inconvenience and expense was erroneous and in itself necessitated a new trial – That error, coupled with the other remarks had the cumulative effect of requiring a new trial – The court commented that the speed with which the jury reached its verdict after the exhortation demonstrated the coercive impact the exhortation had on the minority – See paragraphs 1 to 48.
Criminal Law – Topic 4391.1
Procedure – Jury charge – Deadlocked jury exhortation – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the test for appellate review of instructions given to the jury as an exhortation – See paragraphs 49 to 52.
Criminal Law – Topic 4959
Appeals – Indictable offences – New trials – Grounds – Where jury deliberating under pressure (incl. deadlocked jury) – [See third
Criminal Law – Topic 4391.1
].
Cases Noticed:
Azoulay v. R., [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495, refd to. [para. 9].
Colpitts v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Brydon (J.L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 253; 188 N.R. 321; 65 B.C.A.C. 81; 106 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 10, 62].
R. v. Sims, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 858; 139 N.R. 305; 10 B.C.A.C. 94; 21 W.A.C. 94, refd to. [paras. 17, 81].
Penn and Mead’s Case (1670), 6 How. St. Tr. 951, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Walhein (1952), 36 Cr. App. R. 167 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Davey (1960), 45 Cr. App. R. 11 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Isequilla (1974), 60 Cr. App. R. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
Shoukatallie v. R., [1962] A.C. 81 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 21, 79].
R. v. Palmer, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 402 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 80].
R. v. Isaac (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (Yuk. Terr. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 67].
R. v. Nielson and Stolar (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 81; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 80].
R. c. Littlejohn and Tirabasso (1978), 41 C.C.C.(2d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 62].
R. v. Watson (1988), 87 Cr. App. R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 67].
R. v. Accused, [1988] 2 N.Z.L.R. 46 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 23, 73].
R. v. Alkerton (1992), 55 O.A.C. 358; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 184, affd. [1993] 1 S.C.R. 468; 149 N.R. 216; 60 O.A.C. 317, refd to. [paras. 25, 76].
Black v. R. (1993), 179 C.L.R. 44 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Rollocks (R.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 269; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. R.R. – see R. v. Rollocks (R.).
R. v. Flesh (P.A.) (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 194; 39 W.A.C. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Robinson (D.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; 194 N.R. 181; 72 B.C.A.C. 161; 119 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Halliday (W.L.) (1992), 83 Man.R.(2d) 142; 236 W.A.C. 142; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Buono (1992), 95 Cr. App. R. 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
R. v. Tennant, [1989] 2 N.Z.L.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(a)(ii), sect. 686(1)(a)(iii) [para. 49]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 52].
Criminal Justice Act 1967 (U.K.), 1967, c. 80, sect. 1 [para. 22].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bible, Isaiah 1:18 [para. 14].
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (7th Ed. 1989) [para. 16 (Eng.)].
Nouveau Petit Robert 1 (1995) [para. 16 (Fr.)].
Counsel:
David M. Rosenberg, for the appellant;
Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Rosenberg & Rosenberg, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
Attorney General of British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on June 20, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on October 3, 1996, including the following opinions:
Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 53;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Gonthier, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 54 to 98.
