R. v. Corbett, (1973) 1 N.R. 258 (SCC)

• Judge: Pigeon, Laskin and Dickson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 21, 1973
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1973), 1 N.R. 258 (SCC);1 NR 258;1973 CanLII 199 (SCC);[1975] 1 SCR 56;14 CCC (2d) 385;[1973] SCJ No 157 (QL);[1973] ACS no 157;[1975] 2 SCR 275;1973 CanLII 179 (SCC);[1974] 2 WWR 524;42 DLR (3d) 142

R. v. Corbett (1973), 1 N.R. 258 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Corbett

Indexed As: R. v. Corbett

Supreme Court of Canada

Abbott, Martland, Judson, Spence,

Pigeon, Laskin and Dickson, JJ.

December 21, 1973.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder. The case for the Crown turned on the identification of the accused by the wife of the murdered man. The victim was shot and killed in bed in a motel. The victim's wife was also hit by three bullets fired at her by the murderer. A jury convicted the accused. On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the jury verdict was affirmed - see [1973] 4 W.W.R. 234.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was affirmed. Laskin and Spence, JJ., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered a verdict of acquittal, because the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the accused's appeal solely on the grounds that there was evidence upon which the jury could convict. Laskin and Spence, JJ., stated that the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal failed in their duty to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable or whether the verdict was not supported by the evidence as required by s. 613(1) of the Criminal Code - see paragraphs 21 to 23 and 32.

The majority of the court in the Supreme Court of Canada held that the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal properly considered not only the question of whether there was evidence on which the jury could convict but also considered the question of whether the jury verdict was unreasonable - see paragraphs 7 and 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 57

Protection against self-incrimination - Inference by a jury from an accused's failure to testify - Charge of murder - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the failure of an accused to testify is a proper consideration for a jury and for a court of appeal where direct evidence inculpated the accused - See paragraphs 10, 11 and 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 5010

Appeals - Indictable offences - Duties of an appeal court in reviewing a jury verdict - Charge of murder - S. 613(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a court of appeal had a duty to satisfy itself not only that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to give a guilty verdict but it also had a duty to satisfy itself that the weight of the evidence was not so weak that a verdict of guilty was unreasonable - See paragraph 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - What constitutes a "question of law" - S. 618(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a question respecting the weight of evidence was not a question of law but was a question "on the application of the law" - See paragraphs 4 and 15.

Words and Phrases

Unreasonable - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "unreasonable" as found in s. 613(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Words and Phrases

Question of law - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "question of law" as found in s. 618(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Inglehart, [1968] 1 C.C.C. 211, folld. [para. 29].

R. v. Mohinder Singh Dhillon, [1973] 1 W.W.R. 510, folld. [para. 29].

Stafford v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1973] 3 All E.R. 762, folld. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, C-34, sect. 613(1)(a)(i) [para. 2]; sect. 618(1)(a) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Thomas A. Dohm, Q.C., for the appellant;

W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for the respondent.

ABBOTT, MARTLAND, JUDSON and DICKSON, JJ., concurred with PIGEON, J.

SPENCE, J., concurred with LASKIN, J.