R. v. Braich (A.) et al., (2000) 136 B.C.A.C. 76 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 17, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 76 (CA);2000 BCCA 184

R. v. Braich (A.) (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 76 (CA);

    222 W.A.C. 76

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.027

Regina (respondent) v. Ajmer Braich (appellant) (CA025478)

Regina (respondent) v. Sukhminder Braich (appellant) (CA025479)

(2000 BCCA 184)

Indexed As: R. v. Braich (A.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and  Donald, JJ.A.

March 17, 2000.

Summary:

Two brothers were charged with the first degree murder of one person, three counts of attempted murder of three other persons, and alternative counts of aggravated assault on those same three persons.

The trial judge, sitting without a jury, acquitted the accused of first degree murder but convicted them of manslaughter. He also convicted them of aggravated assault instead of attempted murder of the other three vic­tims. The accused appealed the convictions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Southin, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial on indictments for man­slaughter and aggravated assault.

Criminal Law - Topic 5241

Evidence - Witnesses - Identification - Eye witness identification - Shots from a van into a group killed one and wounded three - Some group members identified two brothers as the driver and shooter - Witnesses provided conflicting evidence respecting the van's make, colour and licence plate - The trial judge convicted on the evidence of two Crown witnesses without regard to their evidence's frailties or the opportunities for misconception or collusion - He failed to (1) discuss the usual principles respecting identification; (2) identify the principal frailties and (3) consider some of the evidence relied on by the defence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that it was an error of law for the judge to conclude that the Crown's case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - The court ordered a new trial.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234; 5 C.R.(4th) 351; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 44; Appendix A].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 46 C.R.(4th) 195; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205, refd to. [para. 45, Appendix A].

R. v. Noble (S.J.) (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 98; 123 W.A.C. 98; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. L.B.; R. v. M.A.G. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 104; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Brydon, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2247 (S.C.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Fengstad (E.J.) et al. (1994), 40 B.C.A.C. 39; 65 W.A.C. 39; 27 C.R.(4th) 383 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A & B].

R. v. Hang (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 195 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. J.F.W. (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 238; 142 W.A.C. 238 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Kerr (P.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 70 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Khan (R.) (1998), 111 B.C.A.C. 221; 181 W.A.C. 221; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 45 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. K.W., [1996] O.J. No. 2952 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Lussier (M.R.) (1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 318; 189 W.A.C. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Miaponoose (A.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Morris (1998), 14 C.R.(5th) 353 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Reitsma (S.J.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 303; 157 W.A.C. 303; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. (1998), 226 N.R. 367; 107 B.C.A.C. 161; 174 W.A.C. 161; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 17 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Statton (C.N.) (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 211; 126 W.A.C. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. T.T. and S.L. (1997), 103 O.A.C. 15; 35 O.R.(3d) 641; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Bardales (R.A.) (1995), 65 B.C.A.C. 241; 106 W.A.C. 241; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Beaudoin (R.D.) (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 114; 172 W.A.C. 114 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Conrad (K.W.) (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 88; 206 W.A.C. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. D.V. (1995), 60 B.C.A.C. 163; 99 W.A.C. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Edwardson (D.) (1993), 22 B.C.A.C. 230; 38 W.A.C. 230; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 508 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Françosi (L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827; 169 N.R. 241; 73 O.A.C. 161; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Guyatte (D.E.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 106; 157 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Hang (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 195 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Irani (A.B.) (1996), 81 B.C.A.C. 203; 132 W.A.C. 203 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. J.B.W. (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 103; 170 W.A.C. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Keshane (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 86; 22 W.A.C. 86 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Mastin (1991), 65 C.C.C.(3d) 204 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Nguyen (M.K.K.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 62; 194 W.A.C. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Nguyen (H.N.) (1994), 47 B.C.A.C. 7; 76 W.A.C. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 403, refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Noble (S.I.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Reitsma (S.J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 769; 226 N.R. 367; 107 B.C.A.C. 161; 174 W.A.C. 161; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Statton (C.N.) (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 211; 126 W.A.C. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Teneycke, [1994] B.C.J. No. 516 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Virk and Sihota (1983), 33 C.R.(3d) 378 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 13 C.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [Appendix B].

Counsel:

R.C.C. Peck, Q.C., for the appellant, Ajmer Braich;

W.B. Smart, Q.C., for the appellant, Sukhminder Braich;

W.J.S. Bell, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 9 and 10, 2000, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On March 17, 2000, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following judgment were filed:

McEachern, C.J.B.C. (Donald, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 56;

Southin, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 57 to 74.