R. v. Harrison, (1974) 2 N.R. 451 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: June 25, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 2 N.R. 451 (SCC);18 CCC (2d) 129;1974 CanLII 18 (SCC);2 NR 451;48 DLR (3d) 536;[1975] 2 SCR 95

R. v. Harrison (1974), 2 N.R. 451 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Harrison

Indexed As: R. v. Harrison

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

June 28, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder. The accused was convicted. The trial judge instructed the jury as follows: "You must be unanimous as to any verdict that you bring back or as to any acquittal. All twelve of you must agree to convict or acquit, and this applies to each accused and to all charges." On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the appeal by the accused was dismissed and the convictions were affirmed.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal was affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the charge was proper because there was no obligation upon a trial judge to explain to a jury that they may disagree. Spence, J., dissenting, concurred in by Laskin, C.J.C. and Dickson, J., would have allowed the appeal. Spence, J., stated that the judge's directions should have sufficient clarity to ensure that a juror would not understand that there was an obligation upon him to reach a verdict. Spence, J., stated that the trial judge's directions set out above would not ensure that a juror would understand that he was under no obligation to bring in a verdict. Spence, J., stated that there was no objection to jurors being told that they may disagree - see paragraph 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 4364

Charge or directions to a jury - Directions regarding unanimity and disagreement - Charge of murder - The trial judge told the jury "you must agree to convict or acquit" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the charge was proper - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there was no obligation upon a trial judge to explain to a jury that they may disagree.

Cases Noticed:

Latour v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 19, not folld. [para. 9]; folld. [para. 15].

Hebert v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 120, folld. [para. 5].

R. v. Schlosser (1951), 102 C.C.C. 187, folld. [para. 15].

R. v. Wedge (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 490, folld. [para. 15].

R. v. DeMarco (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 369, folld. [para. 15].

Counsel:

R.G. Thomas, for the appellant;

R.M. McLeod, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 25, 1974. Judgment was delivered on June 28, 1974 and the following reasons for judgment were filed:

MARTLAND, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 14;

SPENCE, J. - see paragraphs 15 to 18.

JUDSON, RITCHIE, PIGEON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., concurred with MARTLAND, J.

LASKIN, C.J.C., and DICKSON, J., concurred with SPENCE, J.