R. v. Brown (A.R.R.), (1993) 155 N.R. 225 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 12, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 155 N.R. 225 (SCC);[1993] ACS no 82;20 WCB (2d) 195;[1993] SCJ No 82 (QL);JE 93-1438;22 CR (4th) 145;[1993] 2 SCR 918;105 DLR (4th) 199;16 CRR (2d) 290;1993 CanLII 114 (SCC);155 NR 225;83 CCC (3d) 129;141 AR 163

R. v. Brown (A.R.R.) (1993), 155 N.R. 225 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Albert Raymond Roy Brown (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(23103)

Indexed As: R. v. Brown (A.R.R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ.

August 12, 1993.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for first degree murder, submitting that the admission of certain wiretap evidence and taped conversations with an undercover officer violated his right to silence (Charter, s. 7) and should have been excluded under s. 24(2). The evidence was admitted at trial without objection from the accused, who in fact relied on some of the evidence in his defence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Harradence, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 127 A.R. 89; 20 W.A.C. 89, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the accused could not now raise the Charter issue. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heu­reux-Dubé, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis of the accused's alleged violation of his right to silence under s. 7. The court stated that it was open to the accused to raise the Charter issue.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - An accused charged with first degree murder made a tactical decision not to object to the admission at trial of certain wiretap evidence and taped conversations with undercover police officers - The accused signed a waiver that his statements were freely and voluntarily made - On appeal from conviction, the accused now submitted that the evidence was obtained in violation of his right to silence (Charter, s. 7) and should be excluded - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the accused was precluded from raising the Charter issue for the first time on appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused should have been permitted to raise the Charter issue on appeal - The court ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4853

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Grounds raised for first time on appeal - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8584 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 713; 108 N.R. 147, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.P.R. 110, refd to. [para. 9].

Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Quebéc v. Thibault, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1033; 84 N.R. 247; 14 Q.A.C. 173, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51, refd to. [para. 9].

Brown v. Dean, [1910] A.C. 373 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 289; 55 N.R. 1; 42 C.R.(3d) 113; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 10].

Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993), 113 S.Ct. 1710 (U.S. S.Ct.) refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Vidulich (1989), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 1]; sect. 24(2) [para. 4].

Counsel:

Alexander D. Pringle, Q.C., for the appel­lant;

Peter Martin, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Pringle, Renouf & Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

The Attorney General for Alberta, Edmon­ton, Alberta, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 18, 1993, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On August 12, 1993, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (La Forest, Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 3;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 4 to 35.