R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3 (1989)

Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada (July 13, 1989)

Docket number: 20472


Permanent Link: http://ca.vlex.com/vid/r-v-provo-37666309
Id. vLex: VLEX-37666309

Acceda a este documento
y pruebe vLex GRATIS durante 3 días

Sponsored Ads:


Extract:

R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3 (1989)

R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3

Donald Wayne Provo Appellant v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent indexed as: r. v. provo

File No.: 20472.

1988: December 15; 1989: July 13.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba

Criminal law -- Jurisdiction -- Appellate court -- Kienapple principle -- Incest and sexual assault -- Accused found guilty on both charges but conviction on lesser charge not entered -- Accused acquitted of incest on appeal -- Whether or not Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to substitute conviction on lesser charge even though the Crown had not appealed -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 150(1), 246.1, 613(2), (3), (8), 623(1).

The appellant was charged with committing incest by having sexual intercourse with his daughter contrary to s. 150 of the Criminal Code and with sexually assaulting her contrary to s. 246.1 of the Code. The appellant was convicted of incest and acquitted of sexual assault because of the application of the rule against multiple convictions as set in Kienapple v. The Queen. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from the incest charge, entered a conviction on the sexual assault charge and remitted the matter of the sexual assault charge back to the trial judge for the imposition of sentence. The Crown had not appealed the appellant's acquittal on the sexual assault charge. At issue is whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to substitute a conviction for sexual assault for the acquittal entered at trial because of Kienapple when the Crown had not appealed the acquittal for sexual assault.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

The use of conditional stays of charges in which convictions are barred by the rule against multiple convictions is preferable to the use of acquittals. The stay is conditional on the final disposition of the more serious charge on which the accused has been convicted. If the accused's appeal from the conviction on that charge is dismissed or the acc...



Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from Canada including:

  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • Legislation
  • News and Business

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access



If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here

Sponsored Ads:


Other documents:
conair consumer products inc. c. canada (agence des douanes et du revenu), 2004 caf 282 (2004) | 'who is winnipeg's backup? i'm not sure': fantuz | Mccague v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1998) | Doc Turns Tables On Director Moore | Koninklijk besluit tot wijziging van het koninklijk besluit van 25 april 1979 be... | optiek jo deferme, naamloze vennootschap, pastorijstraat 4, 3530 houthalen-helchteren 0454.281.880 rpr hasselt jaarvergadering op 21/05/2007 om... | Décision no 2000-157 du 10 avril 2000 modifiant la décision du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel no 98-413 du 27 mai 1... | DECRETO 18 maggio 2009 Norme sull afflusso e circolazione dei veicoli sull isola di Ponza 09A06233 | Gasthof Malpertus, naamloze vennootschap, Beeldstraat 10, 9100 Sint-Niklaas ... | Gemeente Zele Sectoraal bijzonder plan van aanleg zonevreemde bedrijven deel 1 Bericht van openbaar on... | Par jugement du 18 septembre 2000, la première chambre du tribunal de commerce de Charl...