R. v. Ng,

• Judge: Fraser,Kenny,Ramsay,Wittmann
• Neutral Citation: 2003 ABCA 1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Date: 10 April 2002
• Citation: 2003 ABCA 1,(2003), 327 A.R. 215 (CA),[2003] 11 WWR 429,18 Alta LR (4th) 77,327 AR 215,12 CR (6th) 1,173 CCC (3d) 349,[2003] AJ No 489 (QL),105 CRR (2d) 315,296 WAC 215,57 WCB (2d) 460,327 A.R. 215,(2003), 327 AR 215 (CA),[2003] A.J. No 489 (QL),296 W.A.C. 215

R. v. Ng (K.-F.) (2003), 327 A.R. 215 (CA);

    296 W.A.C. 215

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. MY.036

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ka-Fai Ng (respondent)

(0003-0373-A; 2003 ABCA 1)

Indexed As: R. v. Ng (K.-F.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Wittmann, J.A., and Kenny, J.(ad hoc)

April 28, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of first degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and one count of possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence. He elected trial by judge and jury. Subsequently, he sought to re-elect trial by judge alone. The Crown refused to consent to the re-election and refused to give reasons. The trial judge directed that the trial proceed by judge alone. The trial judge convicted the accused of the weapons offence. The trial judge acquitted the accused of the other charges, but convicted him of the included offences of manslaughter and aggravated assault. The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision to proceed without a jury.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals and the convictions and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 26

General principles - Prosecution of crime -Prosecutorial discretion - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "The basis for a court to probe into prosecutorial discretion ... arises in the limited case of an abuse of the court's process where the prosecutor's misconduct threatens either the accused's Charter right to a fair trial or the public interest in a fair and just trial process." - The court added that "a trial judge may review a prosecutor's discretionary decision where the accused has proven on a balance of probabilities that the prosecutor exercised his discretion abusively, capriciously, or for improper motive such that the court may examine whether there was an abuse of process. The court may intervene if it finds it is necessary to prevent the prosecutor's conduct from resulting in oppressive or vexatious proceedings that would have violated the fundamental principles of justice underlying the community's sense of fair play and decency." - See paragraphs 33 and 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 2854

Jurisdiction - Consent jurisdiction - Elections and re-elections - Re-election by accused - Crown consent - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the only basis upon which a court could interfere with the Crown's discretion to withhold consent to re-election was where the exercise of that discretion was arbitrary, capricious or for an improper motive such that it would be an abuse of process - There had to be an admission, evidence or an allegation with an offer of proof before a court could embark on a review of the Crown's exercise of its discretion - The Crown's refusal to articulate reasons for withholding consent did not make the exercise of its discretion an abuse of process - The Crown was not required to give reasons - See paragraphs 37 to 68 and 100 to 103.

Criminal Law - Topic 2942

Jurisdiction - Loss of jurisdiction - Acts resulting in - The accused was charged with two counts of first degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and a weapons offence - He elected trial by judge and jury - Subsequently, he sought to re-elect trial by judge alone - The Crown refused to consent to the re-election and refused to give reasons - The trial judge directed that the trial proceed by judge alone - The trial judge convicted the accused of the weapons offence - The trial judge acquitted the accused of the other charges, but convicted him of the included offences of manslaughter and aggravated assault - The Crown appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in overriding the Crown's discretion to withhold consent - The error, based on a procedural irregularity, resulted in a loss of jurisdiction - The court could not cure the error under s. 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code because this was an appeal from acquittal - The trial and all orders and determinations made in it, including the manslaughter and aggravated assault convictions, were nullities - The court ordered a new trial - See paragraphs 69 to 97.

Criminal Law - Topic 4975

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Appeal from an acquittal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2942 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5038

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Procedural error - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2942 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. L.E. et al. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 244; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 13, 133].

R. v. Bird (I.K.) et al. (1996), 185 A.R. 201; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 186 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cardinal (J.A.) et al. (1996), 179 A.R. 254; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57, refd to. [paras. 22, 136].

R. v. V.T., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 749; 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 24, 134].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphreys, [1976] 2 All E.R. 497 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wayte v. United States (1985), 470 U.S. 598, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 25, 133].

Kostuch v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1995), 174 A.R. 109; 102 W.A.C. 109; 43 C.R.(4th) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [paras. 27, 133].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 40 C.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Cook (D.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113; 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 28, 133].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (2002), 282 N.R. 1; 210 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 41; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 29, 133].

Krieger et al. v. Law Society of Alberta (2002), 293 N.R. 201; 312 A.R. 275; 281 W.A.C. 275; 217 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 30, 134].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 133].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8, refd to. [paras. 42, 120].

R. v. Sobotiak (R.A.) (1994), 155 A.R. 16; 73 W.A.C. 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Durette et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 81; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), revd. (1994), 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. McGregor (C.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 385; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 570; 43 O.R.(3d) 455 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 59, 133].

R. v. Dalton (R.C.) (1999), 174 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 247; 533 A.P.R. 247 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Ashini (1989), 79 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 318; 246 A.P.R. 318; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 329 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Phillips, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 161; 48 N.R. 372; 50 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 131 A.P.R. 81; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Mitchell (J.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 381; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Hinse (R.) (1995), 189 N.R. 321; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Ruston (1991), 71 Man.R.(2d) 49; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Hanneson (1987), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 560 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Musitano (1982), 1 C.C.C.(3d) 465 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 732 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Bercov (1949), 96 C.C.C. 168 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Lightning and Rabbit (1981), 30 A.R. 413; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 494 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Emkeit (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 309 (Alta. C.A.), affd. [1974] S.C.R. 133, refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Jerome, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 40, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Jackson (2002), 6 Alta. L.R.(4th) 377 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 126].

State v. Dunne (1991), 124 N.J. 303 (Sup. Ct. App. Div.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Smythe, [1971] S.C.R. 680, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Sangwais (M.D.) (1997), 209 A.R. 75; 160 W.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Mohammed (F.) (1990), 61 Man.R.(2d) 192; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 473, sect. 561(1), sect. 561(5) [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Auld, Review of the Criminal Court of England and Wales (2001), pp. 135 [para. 130]; 139 [para. 131].

Australia, Victorian Parliament Law Reform Committee, Jury Service in Victoria, Issues Paper No. 2 (1995), para. 2.29 [para. 132]; para. 2.38 [para. 106].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, The Jury in Criminal Trials, Working Paper No. 27 (1980), p. 15-16 [para. 131].

Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 20 (March 25, 1985), generally [para. 18].

Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada, vol. 3, pp. 14-20 [paras. 18, 117]; 14-21 [para. 18]; 19-61 to 19-67 [paras. 19, 112]; 19-91, to 19-93 [para. 115]; .

Gorman, W., Prosecutorial Discretion in a Charter-Dominated Trial Process (2001), 44 Crim. L.Q. 15, generally [para. 21].

Granger, Christopher, The Criminal Jury Trial in Canada (2nd Ed. 1996), p. 37 [para. 109].

McClung, J.W., Law West of the Bay (1997), 8 J. of Legal History 178, generally [para. 118].

Morgan, D., Controlling Prosecutorial Powers - Judicial Review, Abuse of Process and Section 7 of the Charter (1986-87), 29 Crim. L.Q. 15, generally [para. 21].

Ramsay, J.A., Prosecutorial Discretion: A Reply to David Vanek (1987-88), 30 Crim. L.Q. 378, pp. 378 to 380 [para. 25].

Roach, K., The Attorney General and the Charter Revisited (2000), 50 U.T.L.J. 1, generally [para. 21]; pp. 4-5, 15, 16 [para. 26]; 28-30 [para. 40].

Counsel:

A.R. Schlayer, for the Crown appellant;

B.A. Beresh, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 10, 2002, by Fraser, C.J.A., Wittmann, J.A., and Kenny, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On April 28, 2003, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Wittmann, J.A. (Kenny, J.(ad hoc), concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 103;

Fraser, C.J.A. - see paragraphs 104 to 150.