R. v. P.C.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Doherty,Lauwers,Speyer
• Neutral Citation: 2015 ONCA 30
• Date: 19 December 2014
• Subject Matter: EVIDENCE,CIVIL RIGHTS,CRIMINAL LAW
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

R. v. P.C. (2015), 329 O.A.C. 210 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.028

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. P.C. (a young person) (appellant)

(C56813; 2015 ONCA 30)

Indexed As: R. v. P.C.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Lauwers, JJ.A. and Speyer, J.(ad hoc)

January 21, 2015.

Summary:

The accused, a young person, was convicted of manslaughter in relation to a beating death. He appealed his conviction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination - The accused, a young person, was convicted of manslaughter (beating death) - He was compelled to testify at the preliminary hearings of three adult co-accused - The accused appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to silence was violated because in cross-examining him the Crown breached its undertaking not to use against him any new information from his preliminary hearing testimony - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - While the accused was protected against the use of his preliminary hearing testimony by the Charter (s. 13) and the Canada Evidence Act (s. 5), and the use of evidence derived from his preliminary hearing testimony under s. 7 of the Charter, the impugned cross-examination did not violate any of those prohibitions - The Crown became aware of the matters by other means - The questions were not based on the preliminary hearing evidence - See paragraphs 17 to 24.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination - The accused, a young person, was convicted of manslaughter (beating death) - He was compelled to testify at the preliminary hearings of three adult co-accused - The accused appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to silence was violated by the Crown's suggestion in cross-examination that the accused had somehow testified in the past and had recently fabricated his evidence about his concern for his family as part of his duress defence - The Ontario Court of Appeal noted that when this issue was raised by the Crown at trial, the trial judge immediately excused the jury and warned the Crown to be careful, but declined to provide a cautionary instruction to the jury on the basis that the Crown's questioning approached but did not cross the line of propriety - The appeal court declined to interfere with the trial judge's assessment of how to deal with the issue - See paragraphs 25 to 29.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination - The accused, a young person, was convicted of manslaughter (beating death) - He was compelled to testify at the preliminary hearings of three adult co-accused - The accused appealed his conviction, arguing his right to silence was violated - He claimed that since the Crown had called him as its witness at the preliminary hearing for the adult accused, the Crown was precluded from challenging his credibility at his own trial by means of cross-examination - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this argument - Apart from the absence of precedent, there was no support in principle for that approach - See paragraphs 30 and 31.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - General - Right to remain silent - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4461

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other proceedings - General - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other proceedings - Derivative evidence - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - The accused, a young person, was convicted of manslaughter (beating death) - He was compelled to testify at the preliminary hearings of three adult co-accused - The co-accused eventually pleaded guilty to offences arising from the killing - The accused appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in dealing with the evidence respecting the guilty pleas of the co-accused at his trial - The Ontario Court of Appeal examined the approach used by the trial judge and how she explained the process of entering pleas and convictions in her jury charge - While the trial judge erred in telling the jury that it could use one of the co-accused's guilty pleas and conviction of second degree murder as evidence against the accused, the misdirection was not fatal in this case as the error caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice given that the accused was convicted of manslaughter, not murder - See paragraphs 39 to 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 5431

Evidence and witnesses - Cross-examination of accused - General - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Evidence - Topic 4707

Witnesses - Examination - Cross-examination - Limitations - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 589, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Hibbert (L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Ryan (N.P.), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 14; 438 N.R. 80; 324 N.S.R.(2d) 205; 1029 A.P.R. 205; 2013 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Simpson and Ochs, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 3; 81 N.R. 267; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 481; [1988] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.R.(3d) 137; 46 D.L.R.(4th) 466; 23 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. MacGregor (1981), 64 C.C.C.(2d) 353 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Pentiluk and MacDonald (1974), 21 C.C.C.(2d) 87 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 832; 14 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

John R. Mann III, for the appellant;

Eric Siebenmorgen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 19, 2014, before Doherty, Lauwers, JJ.A. and Speyer, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Lauwers, J.A., on January 21, 2015.