R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al., (1996) 137 Sask.R. 312 (CA)

• Judge: Tallis, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: January 12, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 137 Sask.R. 312 (CA)

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) (1996), 137 Sask.R. 312 (CA);

    107 W.A.C. 312

MLB headnote and full text

Johanna Erna Lucas (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(Appeal File No. 6672)

John David Lucas (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(Appeal File No. 6673)

Indexed As: R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A.

January 12, 1996.

Summary:

The accused were charged with publishing a defamatory libel knowing it to be false, contrary to ss. 300 and 301 of the Criminal Code. Prior to the trial, the accused applied for a declaration that ss. 300 and 301 of the Criminal Code constituted an unreasonable limitation of one or more of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2, 7, 11(c) and 11(d) of the Charter and were thereby of no force and effect. The accused also sought a declaration that ss. 300 and 301 failed to describe an offence known in law and were thereby of no force and effect.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 129 Sask.R. 53, held that s. 300 of the Code was consti­tutional and valid, but declared that s. 301 was unconstitutional and of no force or effect. Both accused were subsequently convicted of defamatory libel contrary to s. 300 of the Criminal Code.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 132 Sask.R. 71, sentenced the accused John Lucas to imprisonment of two years less one day and the accused Johanna Lucas to 22 months' imprisonment. The accused appealed their convictions and sentences.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the conviction appeals and allowed the sentence appeals.

Editor's Note: For another related judgment involving these accused see 129 Sask.R. 141.

Civil Rights - Topic 1843.1

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Defamation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1523 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 129.1

Rights of accused - Duty respecting dis­closed information - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "[t]he material which is dis­closed for the purpose of making full answer and defence should not be released to third parties either by the lawyer repre­senting the accused or the accused person himself" - See paragraph 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 1523

Offences against person and reputation - Defamatory libel - Validity of legislation - Two accused were convicted of defama­tory libel contrary to s. 300 of the Crimi­nal Code - They appealed their convic­tions raising the issue of the constitu­tionality of s. 300 - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed with the con­clusion in R. v. Stevens (B.G.) (Man. C.A.) that s. 300 was consti­tutional - See para­graph 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 5970

Sentence - Defamatory libel - The accused was found guilty of publishing matter without lawful justification or excuse that was likely to injure the reputa­tion of a police officer by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that was designed to insult the police officer, knowing that the matter published was false (Criminal Code, s. 300) - The accused had two prior convictions since 1988 - He was sentenced to imprisonment of two years less one day - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentence was excessive and substituted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment - See paragraph 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 5970

Sentence - Defamatory libel - The accused was found guilty of publishing matter without lawful justification or excuse that was likely to injure the reputa­tion of a police officer by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that was designed to insult the police officer, knowing that the matter published was false (Criminal Code, s. 300) - The accused had a previous conviction in 1988 for disobeying a court order - She was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that the accused was more of a follower in the matter and that the sentence was ex­cessive - The court substituted a sentence of one year's imprisonment - See para­graph 12.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stevens (B.G.) (1995), 100 Man.R.(2d) 81; 91 W.A.C. 81; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 300 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ontario, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge, Screen­ing, Dis­closure and Resolutions Dis­cussions (The Martin Committee Report) (1994), gen­erally [para. 9].

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario, Report of the Attorney General's Advis­ory Committee on Charge, Screen­ing, Dis­closure and Resolutions Dis­cussions (The Martin Committee Report).

Counsel:

E. Holgate, for the appellant;

D. Rayner and R. Macnab, for the Crown.

These appeals were heard on January 12, 1996, before Tallis, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was ren­dered orally on January 12, 1996, and the following reasons were delivered orally by Vancise, J.A., on February 5, 1996.