R. v. Harley, Dore, Sprague and Appleton, (1984) 4 O.A.C. 148 (CA)

• Judge: Lacourcière, Zuber and Thorson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 18, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 4 O.A.C. 148 (CA)

R. v. Harley (1984), 4 O.A.C. 148 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Harley, Dore, Sprague and Appleton

Indexed As: R. v. Harley, Dore, Sprague and Appleton

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, Zuber and Thorson, JJ.A.

June 19, 1984.

Summary:

The accused were a chief of police and police officers who forcibly broke into a private residence to break up a rowdy party. The accused were charged with unlawful entry with intent to commit an indictable offence (s. 307(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada), confinement without lawful authority of numerous persons (s. 247(2) and (3) of the Code), and forcible entry of a residence (s. 74 of the Code). The accused were acquitted on all three counts. The Crown appealed under s. 605(1)(a) of the Code on the ground of alleged errors in the trial judge's jury charge.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that there were serious errors and deficiencies in the jury charge, but dismissed the appeal because the verdict would necessarily have been the same even if the jury had been properly instructed.

Criminal Law - Topic 1063

Forcible entry - Elements - Intention - Several accused were charged with forcible entry of a residence contrary to s. 74 of the Criminal Code of Canada - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that an intent to possess the property entered was not an element of the offence - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding evidence of witnesses - A chief of police and three officers were charged with three offences under the Criminal Code of Canada - The trial judge instructed the jury that the police officers who testified for the Crown were accomplices and that their testimony required independent corroboration i.e. that the officers could not corroborate each other - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misdirected the jury - See paragraphs 7 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495; 104 C.C.C. 97; 15 C.R. 181, ref'd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Armstrong (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 113 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Vetrovic; R. v. Gaja (1982), 41 N.R. 606; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 1; 27 C.R.(3d) 304, ref'd to. [para. 7].

Scribner v. The Queen, [1968] 4 C.C.C. 126; 3 C.R.N.S. 279 (N.B.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Brittain et al., [1972] 1 Q.B. 357; 56 Cr. App. Rep. 235 (C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Vezeau, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 418; 28 C.C.C.(2d) 81, ref'd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

D. Watt, Q.C., for the appellant;

A. Pelletier, for Paul Dore, one of the respondents;

P. Sprague, in person;

Clayton Powell, Q.C., for Henry Harley, one of the respondents.

This appeal was heard before Lacourcière, Zuber and Thorson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 18, 1984. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Lacourcière, J.A., and released on June 19, 1984.