R. v. Jack (B.), (1994) 168 N.R. 13 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 168 N.R. 13 (SCC);[1994] SCJ No 44 (QL);[1994] 2 SCR 310;[1994] CarswellMan 7;95 Man R (2d) 158;168 NR 13;1994 CanLII 87 (SCC);70 WAC 158;31 CR (4th) 80;90 CCC (3d) 353

R. v. Jack (B.) (1994), 168 N.R. 13 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Brian Gordon Jack v. Her Majesty The Queen

(23731)

Indexed As: R. v. Jack (B.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

May 24, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was tried before a judge and jury on a charge of second degree murder of his wife. The accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed, alleging misdirection by the trial judge when recharging the jury.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a deci­sion reported 88 Man.R.(2d) 93; 51 W.A.C. 93, allowed the appeal. The court ordered a retrial on a charge of manslaughter. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4355

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding included offences - A jury sought clarification of the difference between second degree murder and man­slaughter - The trial judge made a slip of the tongue, stating that murder was killing by means of an unlawful act with specific intent and manslaughter was killing by means of an unlawful act with (instead of without) this specific intent - The jury acquitted the accused - The Crown appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal ordered a retrial - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the slip in the jury recharge amounted to serious misdirection and that absent the error, the verdict would not inevitably have been the same - See paragraph 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The accused successfully appealed his conviction and a new trial was ordered - The Crown successfully appealed the accused's acquittal after the second trial and a new trial was ordered - The accused appealed, alleging, inter alia, failure of the Crown to make timely dis­closure - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the issue of timely disclosure should be dealt with at trial - The issue was not raised at the second trial and accordingly, the appeal court lacked juris­diction to order a stay "and we are in the same position" - See paragraph 3.

Criminal Law - Topic 4945

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - When available - For included offences - The accused was charged with second degree murder - The jury sought clarifi­cation of the difference between second degree murder and manslaughter - The trial judge misdirected them - The jury acquitted the accused - The Manitoba Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on manslaughter charges, stating that it was impossible to say that the jury, had they been properly instructed, would have necessarily rendered a verdict of acquittal - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision, stating that ordering a new trial "in the circumstances of the case is not one of those 'clearest of cases' which would amount to an abuse of process" - See paragraph 4.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Richard J. Wolson and John A. McAmmond, for the appellant;

Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 24, 1994, the decision of the court was delivered orally in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. - see paragraph 1;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 2 to 5.