R. v. Budai (M.K.) et al., (2001) 153 B.C.A.C. 98 (CA)

• Judge: Cumming, Hollinrake, Finch, Ryan and Mackenzie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 02, 2001
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2001), 153 B.C.A.C. 98 (CA);2001 BCCA 349

R. v. Budai (M.K.) (2001), 153 B.C.A.C. 98 (CA);

    251 W.A.C. 98

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.130

Regina (appellant) v. Michael Kent Budai, Preet Sarbjit Gill and Ho Sik (Phil) Kim (respondents)

(CA021154, CA021155, CA021156; 2001 BCCA 349)

Indexed As: R. v. Budai (M.K.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Cumming, Hollinrake, Finch, Ryan and Mackenzie, JJ.A.

May 17, 2001.

Summary:

Six accused were charged with first degree murder and tried together. A jury acquitted all accused. The Crown appealed the acquittal of three accused (Budai, Gill and Kim). Meanwhile, one of the jurors was found guilty of obstruction of justice on evidence that she and one of the accused (Gill) had a sexual relationship during the trial. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Cumming, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in 130 B.C.A.C. 86; 211 W.A.C. 86, ruled that the juror was competent but not compellable as a witness on the appeal. The witness, however, voluntarily gave a full statement to Crown counsel.

The Crown obtained leave to adduce this and other fresh evidence on the appeal. The fresh evidence was ordered heard before a single appellate judge. The accused applied for a ban on publication of the evidence to be taken in this proceeding. At issue was whether the process was to be open or closed to the public and if it was a public process, whether a publicity ban was required to protect the accused's interest in a fair appeal, and if a new trial was ordered, in a fair trial.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Donald, J.A., in a decision reported in 137 B.C.A.C. 26; 223 W.A.C. 26, dismissed the application.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the following decision, allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial for the three accused.

Editor's Note: For other cases respecting these accused, see [1999] B.C.A.C. Uned. 224 and 110 B.C.A.C. 146; 178 W.A.C. 146.

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Cumming, Finch and Mackenzie, JJ.A., discussed the necessity of the impartiality of jurors - The requirement that there be no reasonable apprehension of bias applied to jurors - See paragraphs 27 to 31, 66 to 71.

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - During a murder trial, the judge received reports of possible contact between a female juror and one male accused - The judge gave no direction to the jury or juror, did not dismiss the juror under the Criminal Code, s. 644(1), or conduct any further inquiry - After all accused were acquitted, an improper personal relationship was discovered between the juror and accused - The juror was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Cumming and Ryan, JJ.A., held that the judge erred in law by failing to conduct an inquiry into the matter (question the juror), despite the Crown's failure to object - Any inquiry that was conducted did not meet legal requirements - See paragraphs 37 to 61, 113 to 114.

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Cumming, Finch, Ryan and Mackenzie, JJ.A., stated that on becoming aware of circumstances raising a question as to the impartiality of a juror, a trial judge could, in his discretion, discharge that juror under the Criminal Code, s. 644, or dismiss the jury and declare a mistrial - This discretion must be exercised according to governing legal principles - If an issue of potential bias arose, the judge must apply the proper legal test for determining whether a reasonable apprehension of bias arose, and at a minimum, conduct an inquiry into the circumstances to obtain the necessary information upon which to exercise his discretion, regardless of the positions of counsel - See paragraphs 39 to 41, 108, 113 to 114.

Criminal Law - Topic 4326

Procedure - Jury - General - Examination of juror by trial judge - [See second and third Criminal Law - Topic 4312 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4828

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - By Crown - After several accused were acquitted by a jury of murder, an improper personal relationship during the trial was discovered between a female juror and one male accused - The Crown appealed the acquittals - Fresh evidence was admitted of, inter alia, the juror's subsequent conviction for attempted obstruction of justice - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Cumming, Hollinrake, Finch and Mackenzie, JJ.A., held that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s. 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code - The application of the legal test for bias and whether a reasonable apprehension of bias applied to the evidence was a question of law within s. 676(1)(a), giving the Crown a right of appeal - See paragraphs 62, 72 to 83, 107, 111.

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of law or question of law alone - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4828 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4867

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Bias - After several accused were acquitted by a jury of murder, an improper personal relationship during the trial was discovered between a female juror and one male accused - The Crown appealed the acquittals - Fresh evidence was admitted of, inter alia, the juror's subsequent conviction for attempted obstruction of justice - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Cumming, Hollinrake, Finch and Mackenzie, JJ.A., held that the fresh evidence raised a reasonable apprehension of bias or impartiality on the juror's part - The public interest required that the acquittals be set aside and a new trial ordered for all accused - See paragraphs 62, 84 to 111.

Criminal Law - Topic 4949

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - New evidence - After several accused were acquitted by a jury of murder, an improper personal relationship during the trial was discovered between a female juror and one male accused - The Crown appealed the acquittals - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Cumming, Hollinrake, Finch and Mackenzie, JJ.A., held that fresh evidence of the juror's subsequent conviction for attempted obstruction of justice was admissible on the question of bias - Further, the juror's statements to third parties were admissible to establish her state of mind and also as overt acts displaying her lack of impartiality - There was no lack of due diligence by the Crown and the admission of the fresh evidence was necessary in the interests of justice - See paragraphs 62, 84 to 103, 107, 111.

Criminal Law - Topic 4963

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Lack of appearance of justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4867 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4975

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Appeal from an acquittal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4828 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4983.1

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to order new trial - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4867 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Owen (No. 2) (1983), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 148 (N.S.C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Guess (G.) (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 51; 235 W.A.C. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321; 87 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 22 A.P.R. 271; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 27, 67].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 28, 66].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [paras. 30, 70].

Szilard v. Szasz, [1955] S.C.R. 3, refd to. [para. 30].

Ghirardosi v. British Columbia (Minister of Highways), [1966] S.C.R. 367, refd to. [para. 30].

Blanchette v. C.I.S. Ltd., [1973] S.C.R. 833, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Brouillard, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 39; 57 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Sussex Justices: Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256, refd to. [para. 30].

Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.C.G.) v. Lannon; R. v. London Rent Assessment Panel Committee, [1969] 1 Q.B. 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. L.H.S. (1999), 122 B.C.A.C. 300; 200 W.A.C. 300 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 88].

R. v. Gumbly (D.) (1996), 155 N.S.R.(2d) 117; 457 A.P.R. 117; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 61 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 88].

R. v. Masuda (1953), 106 C.C.C. 122 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Gough, [1993] A.C. 646 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Spencer (1986), 83 Cr. App. Rep. 277 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Putnam, Lyons & Taylor (1990), 93 Cr. App. Rep. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Webb v. R. (1994), 181 C.L.R. 41 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Afghanzada (Z.) (2000), 138 O.A.C. 303; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 349 (C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Horne (1987), 78 A.R. 144; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 427 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Andrews, Farrant & Kerr (1984), 13 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Hanna (K.D.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 42; 45 W.A.C. 42; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Blackwell, [1995] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 625 (C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

R. v. Hertrich (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 510 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

R. v. M.C.H., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449; 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 1; 18 C.R.(5th) 135; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 479, refd to. [para. 40].

Auckland Casino Ltd. v. Casino Control Authority, [1995] 1 N.Z.L.R. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Gotkas v. Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1993), 31 N.S.W.L.R. 684, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 75, 122].

United States v. Desmond (1982), 670 F.2d 414 (3rd Cir. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

Horning v. District of Columbia (1920), 254 U.S. 135, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Boak, [1925] S.C.R. 525, consd. [paras. 82, 116].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181; 14 C.R.(3d) 22 (Eng.); 106 D.L.R.(3d) 212; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 17 C.R.(3d) 34 (Fr.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Nielsen and Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480; 82 N.R. 280; 52 Man.R.(2d) 46; 62 C.R.(3d) 313; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1988] 3 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. W.W. and I.W. (1995), 84 O.A.C. 241; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Strauss (D.W.) (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 241; 100 W.A.C. 241; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Sauve (G.J.) (1997), 101 B.C.A.C. 21; 164 W.A.C. 21; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Peterson (B.) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 60; 27 O.R.(3d) 739 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. O'Brien (1977), 16 N.R. 271; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 209 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 121, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1; 5 C.R.(5th) 291; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Cullen, [1949] S.C.R. 658, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Pinske (1988), 30 B.C.L.R.(2d) 114 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Varga (E.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 141; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 484; 30 C.R.(4th) 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Potvin (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 23 C.R.(4th) 10, refd to. [para. 124].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; [1993] 4 W.W.R. 225; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 78 B.C.L.R.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Lampard, [1969] S.C.R. 373, refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Schuldt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592; 63 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 57, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 3), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57; 111 N.R. 62; 86 Sask.R. 142, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Grdic, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 810; 59 N.R. 61; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 132].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 676(1)(a) [para. 74].

Authors and Works Noticed:

England and Wales Law Commission Report, Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals, Report No. 267 (March 2001), Cm. 5048 [para. 142].

New Zealand Law Reform Commission Report, Acquittal Following Preservation of the Course of Justice, Report No. 70 (March 27, 2001), generally [para. 142].

Counsel:

W.S. Berardino, Q.C., M. Andrews, A. Nathanson and P. Cyr, for the appellant, the Crown;

I. Donaldson, Q.C., and T. Chamberlain, for the respondent, Budai;

R.S. Fowler, for the respondent, Gill;

G. Orris, Q.C., and B. Craig, for the respondent, Kim.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on February 26 to March 2, 2001, before Cumming, Hollinrake, Finch, Ryan and Mackenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was delivered on May 17, 2001, including the following opinions:

Cumming, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 63;

Mackenzie, J.A. (Finch, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 64 to 109;

Hollinrake, J.A., concurring - see paragraphs 110 to 112;

Ryan, J.A., concurring - see paragraphs 113 to 143.