R. v. Halcrow (V.), (1995) 179 N.R. 63 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 179 N.R. 63 (SCC);95 CCC (3d) 94;1995 CanLII 116 (SCC);179 NR 63;55 BCAC 72;90 WAC 72;[1995] 1 SCR 440

R. v. Halcrow (V.) (1995), 179 N.R. 63 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Verlie Ann Halcrow et al. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23542)

Indexed As: R. v. Halcrow (V.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Major, JJ.

January 27, 1995.

Summary:

The accused was charged with nine counts of assault causing bodily harm respecting nine foster children in her care between 1969 and 1978. The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm on two counts, assault on three counts and was acquitted on the remaining four counts. The trial judge sentenced the accused to a total of one year's imprisonment. The accused appealed the convictions, submitting that the trial judge misdirected the jury and that he erred in refusing to grant a stay where the 12 year pre-charge delay was prejudicial and an abuse of process.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Southin, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judg­ment reported 24 B.C.A.C. 197; 40 W.A.C. 197, allowed the appeal in part. The court affirmed the convictions for assault causing bodily harm on two counts, but set aside the assault convictions. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka and Major, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal for the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - The accused was charged in 1990 with nine counts of assault causing bodily harm respecting nine foster children between 1969 and 1978 - The accused submitted that the allegations were investi­gated by the Province and the R.C.M.P. in 1978 and that she was cleared of wrong­doing, therefore, the delay infringed her right to make full answer and defence as protected by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and s. 650(3) of the Criminal Code - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the accused failed to establish pre­judice to her right to make full answer and defence or her right to a fair trial - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamen­tal justice - The accused was charged in 1990 with nine counts of assault causing bodily harm respecting nine foster children between 1969 and 1978 - The accused submitted that the allegations were investi­gated by the Province and the R.C.M.P. in 1978 and that she was cleared of wrong­doing, therefore, it was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice and an abuse of process to lay criminal charges against her 12 years later - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a stay of proceedings - There was no provincial investigation resulting in a conclusive finding clearing her of pos­sible charges - Nor was there an R.C.M.P. investigation until 1989 - At no time was the accused informed that there was a decision not to prosecute - There was no evidence to support a finding of abuse of process or denial of fundamental justice - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

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

Criminal Law - Topic 255

Abuse of process - Power of court to prevent abuse of process and grant stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8547 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1426

Assaults - Jury charge - The accused was charged with nine counts of assault caus­ing bodily harm respecting nine foster children between 1969 and 1978 - The accused pleaded reasonable force by way of correction (Criminal Code, s. 43) - The accused claimed the trial judge should have instructed the jury that the accused's religious belief in corporeal punishment was an exculpatory factor to be considered in determining whether excessive force was used - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that such special direction was not required where the accused did not claim her religious belief justified the degree of force used (i.e., her religious belief was not established to be a factor in her determination of the degree of force used) - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1426

Assaults - Jury charge - The accused was charged with nine counts of assault caus­ing bodily harm respecting nine foster children between 1969 and 1978 - The accused pleaded reasonable force by way of correction (Criminal Code, s. 43) - The accused claimed the trial judge should have instructed the jury that the reason­ableness of the force should be judged by 1978 community standards and not on the less tolerant 1991 standards - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that it was preferable that the jury be instructed to ignore present day abhorrence of cor­poreal punishment in determining reason­ableness of force - However, there was no error justifying a new trial, where it was clear by the jury's diversified verdicts that they determined the reasonableness of force on the basis of circumstances exist­ing at the time of the offences - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeal.

Counsel:

Alexander P. Watt and Sheldon B. Tate, for the appellant;

E. Bennett, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 27, 1995, Lamer, C.J.C., delivered the following oral judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.