R. v. Latimer (R.W.), (1997) 207 N.R. 215 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 207 N.R. 215 (SCC);[1997] SCJ No 11 (QL);142 DLR (4th) 577;33 WCB (2d) 225;JE 97-359;[1997] 1 SCR 217;41 CRR (2d) 281;207 NR 215;152 Sask R 1;4 CR (5th) 1;[1997] 2 WWR 525;140 WAC 1;1997 CanLII 405 (SCC);112 CCC (3d) 193

R. v. Latimer (R.W.) (1997), 207 N.R. 215 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Robert W. Latimer (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(File No. 24818)

Indexed As: R. v. Latimer (R.W.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

February 6, 1997.

Summary:

Latimer was convicted of second degree murder in connection with the death of his 12 year old daughter who suffered from severe cerebral palsy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 10 years. Latimer appealed against the conviction and sentence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Bayda, C.J.S., dissenting with respect to the sentence appeal, in a decision reported at 134 Sask.R. 1; 101 W.A.C. 1, dismissed the appeal. Latimer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Editor's Note: For previous cases involving this accused see 124 Sask.R. 180; 128 Sask.R. 63; 85 W.A.C. 63 and 128 Sask.R. 195; 85 W.A.C. 195.

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3608 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - Latimer's daughter, who suffered from severe cerebral palsy, died of carbon monoxide poisoning while in his care - Police went to Latimer's farm, told him that he was being detained for investi­gation into his daughter's death and advised him of his right to counsel - Latimer accompanied them to the detach­ment where he confessed and was told that he was being held for murder - He was subsequently convicted of second degree murder - Latimer argued that he had been arbitrarily detained in violation of s. 9 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument - The court affirmed that a de facto arrest of Latimer had occurred and that the arrest was law­ful because it was based on reasonable and probable grounds - See paragraphs 22 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - Latimer's daughter, who suffered from severe cerebral palsy, died of carbon monoxide poisoning while in his care - Police went to Latimer's farm, told him that he was being detained for investi­gation into his daughter's death and advised him of his right to counsel - Latimer accompanied them to the detach­ment where he confessed and was told that he was being held for murder - He was subsequently convicted of second degree murder - Latimer argued that the failure to inform him that he had been "arrested" and that he could be charged with murder violated his s. 10(a) Charter right to be promptly informed of the reasons for arrest or detention - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 10(a) was not vio­lated where Latimer understood the basis of his apprehension and hence the extent of his jeopardy - See paragraphs 28 to 31.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of or inter­ference with - What constitutes - Latimer appealed his conviction for second degree murder - Relying on R. v. Bartle (K.) (S.C.C.), Latimer argued that the failure to specifically inform him of the existence of a toll free telephone number by which he could access immediate free legal advice was unconstitutional because it did not meet the standard for the informational component under s. 10(b) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument - Bartle stood for the proposi­tion that s. 10(b) encompassed the right to be informed of the means to access those duty counsel services available at the time of arrest - When Latimer was arrested (during office hours), the toll free number in Saskatchewan was not in operation and it was therefore not necessary to inform him of that number - Further, Latimer was adequately apprised of the means to contact the duty counsel service offered by the local Legal Aid office - See para­graphs 32 to 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - Duty of authority to notify accused or explain right to counsel - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[w]here an individual is detained during regular business hours, and when legal assistance is available through a local telephone number which can easily be found by the person in question, neither the letter nor the spirit of Bartle [R. v. Bartle (K.) (S.C.C.)] is breached simply by not providing that individual with the local phone number" - See paragraph 37.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - Duty of authority to notify accused or explain right to counsel - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he principle that an accused or detained person must be provided with the information which is necessary to ensure access to counsel means that if an accused were arrested during normal office hours in a jurisdiction where duty counsel was accessible by a 24 hour toll free service and was also available by a local call during the day, s. 10(b) [of the Charter] would not require that the toll free number be given, because that number is not necessary to ensure access to counsel" - See paragraph 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 4617.1

Right to counsel - Notice of - Sufficiency of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 and both Civil Rights - Topic 4609 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4319

Procedure - Jury - General - Interference - Latimer was convicted of second degree murder in connection with the death of his 12 year old daughter who suffered from severe cerebral palsy - The conviction was affirmed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal - Subsequent to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, fresh evidence was adduced which indicated that trial counsel for the Crown and an RCMP officer pre­pared a questionnaire asking prospective jurors for their views on a number of issues, including religion, abortion, and euthanasia - The questionnaire was ad­ministered by RCMP officers to 30 of 198 prospective jurors and led to some unre­corded discussions with prospective jurors, which went beyond the questions in the questionnaire - Of the 30 jurors who were administered the questionnaire, five served on the jury - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the interference with prospective jurors warranted a new trial, where it contravened the fundamental tenet that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done - See para­graphs 13 and 14 and 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 4963

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Lack of appearance of justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4319 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, appld. [para. 2].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, consd. [para. 2].

R. v. Pozniak (W.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232, consd. [para. 2].

R. v. Matheson (R.N.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 328; 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 382 A.P.R. 271, consd. [para. 2].

R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 2].

R. v. Cobham, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360; 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Whitfield, [1970] S.C.R. 46, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124, consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Caldough (1961), 36 C.R. 248 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 17]; sect. 10(a) [para. 16]; sect. 10(b) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, P.W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), p. 1073 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Mark Brayford, Q.C., for the appellant;

Carol A. Snell, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Brayford-Shapire, Saskatoon, Saskatche­wan, for the appellant;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respon­dent.

This appeal was heard on November 27, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court Canada.

Lamer, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment in both official languages on February 6, 1997.