R. v. Baxter (D.R.), (1997) 90 B.C.A.C. 54 (CA)

• Judge: Goldie, Rowles and Huddart, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: Wednesday March 26, 1997
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 54 (CA)

R. v. Baxter (D.R.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 54 (CA);

    147 W.A.C. 54

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. David Robert Baxter (appellant)

(CA019172)

Indexed As: R. v. Baxter (D.R.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Goldie, Rowles and Huddart, JJ.A.

March 26, 1997.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - Co-con­spirators gave the Crown statutory declar­ations (implicating the accused) on under­takings prohibiting (1) disclosure to any­one, unless one of the declarants was called as a defence witness at the accused's separate trial and (2) calling either as Crown witnesses - In exchange, Crown counsel altered his position at their sen­tencing - The Crown did not disclose these matters to the defence until so ordered, after clos­ing its case - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the failure to make full and timely disclosure prejudiced the ac­cused's right to make full answer and defence and breached the Charter, ss. 7 and 11(d) - A new trial was the only remedy - See paragraphs 66 to 95.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.20

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - New trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the principles of the Crown's duty of disclosure - See para­graphs 50 to 62.

Criminal Law - Topic 4952

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Conduct by Crown - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 105; 67 W.A.C. 105; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Carosella (N.) (1997), 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Marks v. Beyfus (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 494, refd to. [para. 56].

Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Leipert (R.D.) (1997), 207 N.R. 145; 85 B.C.A.C. 162; 138 W.A.C. 162 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 218, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Dersch et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; 36 Q.A.C. 258; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132, refd to. [para. 83].

Dersch v. Canada (Attorney General) - see R. v. Dersch et al.

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Farinacci - see R. v. Durette et al.

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 498, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Antinello (J.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 122; 89 W.A.C. 122; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [para. 2]; sect. 24(1) [para. 91].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 685(5)(a) [para. 92].

Counsel:

Patrick J. Beirne, for the appellant;

Kenneth J. Yule, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 7, 1996, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Goldie, Rowles and Huddart, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On March 26, 1997, Rowles, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.