R. v. Layton, 2009 SCC 36 (2009)

Extract

---

R. v. Layton, 2009 SCC 36 (2009)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Citation: R. v. Layton, 2009 SCC 36

Date: 20090723

Docket: 32883

Between:

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant and

Christopher Anthony Layton

Respondent

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

Reasons for Judgment:

(paras. 1 to 38)

Dissenting Reasons:

(paras. 39 to 68)

Rothstein J. (Binnie, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ. concurring)

Cromwell J. (McLachlin C.J. concurring)

Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.

______________________________

r. v. layton

Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v.

Christopher Anthony Layton Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Layton

Neutral citation: 2009 SCC 36.

File No.: 32883.

2009: April 21; 2009: July 23.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba

Criminal law - Trial - Charge to jury - Reasonable doubt - Question from jury - Charge on reasonable doubt using Lifchus model - Jury asking trial judge for further directions on reasonable doubt - Trial judge repeating in recharge reasonable doubt instructions given in main charge - Whether trial judge erred in repeating same instructions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault. Credibility of the complainant and the accused was the central issue for the jury in deciding whether the Crown had proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge instructed the jury on reasonable doubt essentially following the Lifchus suggested charge and provided a written copy of her charge in the jury room. The jury came back with a question: "Jury requests clarification on reasonable doubt section of charge to the jury. Particularly difference between absolute certainty and balance of probabilities". The trial judge simply repeated the original charge almost verbatim. She ended her recharge by saying that every attempt to explain the words "reasonable doubt" leads to more confusion and that there was very little she could add to clarify the definition of these words. The accused was convicted. In a majority decision, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in not providing a responsive answer, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Held (McLachlin C.J. and Cromwell J. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.

Per Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.: When judges follow the Lifchus suggested charge their charges on the question of r...

See the full content of this document

---