R. v. Kinley (D.E.), 2009 BCCA 363

• Judge: Newbury, Mackenzie and Saunders, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: August 19, 2009
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2009 BCCA 363;(2009), 274 B.C.A.C. 287 (CA)

R. v. Kinley (D.E.) (2009), 274 B.C.A.C. 287 (CA);

    463 W.A.C. 287

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.029

Regina (respondent) v. Dean Evan Kinley (appellant)

(CA034301; 2009 BCCA 363)

Indexed As: R. v. Kinley (D.E.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Newbury, Mackenzie and Saunders, JJ.A.

August 19, 2009.

Summary:

The accused, in a judgment reported [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. B39; 2006 BCSC 2048, was convicted of two counts of robbery. The sole issue at trial was identification. The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge's reasons for judgment were inadequate, in that they did not address key evidence or submissions and did not provide a basis for meaningful appellate review. The Crown argued that although the reasons for judgment were sparse, they adequately explained the basis for the convictions, demonstrated a logical connection between the evidence and the verdicts and addressed the substance of the critical trial issues.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The accused was convicted of two counts of robbery and acquitted on a third count - The sole issue at trial was identification - The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge's reasons for judgment were inadequate, in that they did not address key evidence or submissions and did not provide a basis for meaningful appellate review - The Crown argued that although the reasons were sparse, they adequately explained the basis for the convictions, demonstrated a logical connection between the evidence and the verdicts, and addressed the substance of the critical issues - The British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown and dismissed the appeal - The inadequacy of reasons for judgment was not a free-standing ground of appeal - Inadequate reasons had to preclude meaningful appellate review or result in a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's failure to appreciate important evidence - The trial judge's terse reasons did not constitute reversible error - The judgment was issued after a short recess, when all of the evidence and submissions were fresh in the trial judge's mind - Evidence was not overlooked and submissions were considered, as evidenced by the acquittal on the third count - A trial judge was not required to address each detail in his reasons, provided that his conclusion was apparent.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Walker (B.G.), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245; 375 N.R. 228; 310 Sask.R. 305; 423 W.A.C. 305; 2008 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. R.C., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 226; 153 N.R. 241; 55 Q.A.C. 63; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Norman (D.L.) (1993), 68 O.A.C. 22; 16 O.R.(3d) 295; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al. (2000), 140 B.C.A.C. 27; 229 W.A.C. 27; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 467; 2000 BCCA 184, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

R.S. Fowler, for the appellant;

W.J.S. Bell, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 29, 2009, at Vancouver, B.C., before Newbury, Mackenzie and Saunders, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On August 19, 2009, Saunders, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.