R. v. Pappajohn, (1980) 32 N.R. 104 (SCC)

• Judge: Martland, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 20, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1980), 32 N.R. 104 (SCC);[1980] SCJ No 51 (QL);32 NR 104;111 DLR (3d) 1;[1980] 2 SCR 120;[1980] 4 WWR 387;14 CR (3d) 243;1980 CanLII 13 (SCC);4 WCB 422;52 CCC (2d) 481;[1980] ACS no 51

R. v. Pappajohn (1980), 32 N.R. 104 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Pappajohn

Indexed As: R. v. Pappajohn

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.

May 20, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of rape. The trial judge rejected the accused's request that the defence of mistake of fact be put to the jury (the accused alleged that, assuming lack of consent, he mistakenly believed that the complainant consented to acts of intercourse). The accused was convicted. The accused appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the refusal of the trial judge to put the defence of mistake of fact to the jury because there was no evidence sufficient to support such a defence.

Dickson and Estey, JJ., dissenting, in the Supreme Court of Canada, would have allowed the appeal and would have ordered a new trial on the ground that the defence of mistaken belief should have been left to the jury (see paragraphs 30 to 92).

Criminal Law - Topic 30

Intention or mens rea - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the principles of mens rea (see paragraphs 34 and 35).

Criminal Law - Topic 673

Rape - Jury charge, defence of mistake of fact - The accused in a rape trial testified that the complainant consented to acts of intercourse - The accused was convicted - The trial judge rejected the accused's request that the defence of mistake of fact be put to the jury (the accused alleged that, assuming lack of consent, he mistakenly believed that the complainant consented to acts of intercourse) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the refusal of the trial judge to put the defence of mistake of fact to the jury because there was no evidence sufficient to support such a defence - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to examples of evidence which would support a mistaken belief as to consent (see paragraph 19).

Criminal Law - Topic 673

Rape - Jury charge, defence of mistake of fact - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that on a charge of rape the defence of mistake of fact is available to an accused (see paragraph 21).

Criminal Law - Topic 4350

Charge or directions to jury - Duty to instruct - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there is no duty on a trial judge to instruct a jury on a specific defence unless the evidence (assuming its truth) relied upon in support of the defence "is sufficient to justify the putting of the defence" to the jury (see paragraph 8).

Cases Noticed:

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan et al., [1975] 2 All E.R. 347 (H.L.); [1976] A.C. 182, refd to. [paras. 4, 27 and 38].

R. v. Plummer and Brown (1976), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 497 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 4 and 49].

R. v. Beaver, [1957] S.C.R. 531, folld. [para. 6], refd to. [paras. 24 and 65].

Wu v. The King, [1934] S.C.R. 609, refd to. [para. 8].

Kelsey v. The Queen, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 220, refd to. [paras. 8 and 78].

R. v. Workman and Huculak, [1963] S.C.R. 266, refd to. [para. 8].

Wilson v. Inyang, [1951] 2 K.B. 799; 2 all E.R. 237, refd to. [paras. 26 and 64].

R. v. Flattery (1877), 13 Cox C.C. 388, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Hornbuckle, [1945] V.L.R. 281, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Daly, [1968] V.R. 257, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Flaherty and others (1968), 89 W.N. (N.S.W.) 141, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Flannery and Prendergast, [1969] V.R. 31, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Sperotto; R. v. Salvietti, [1970] 71 W.N. (N.S.W.) 223, refd to. [para. 42].

Mazza v. The Queen, 21 N.R. 271; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 907, refd to. [para. 45].

Leary v. The Queen, 13 N.R. 592; [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Bresse, Vallières and Théberge (1978), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 78, refd to. [para. 48].

Sweet v. Parsley, [1969] 1 All E.R. 347, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Prince (1875), 13 Cox C.C. 138, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Tolson (1889), 23 Q.B. 168, refd to. [para. 55].

Thomas v. The King (1937), 59 C.L.R. 279, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. King, [1963] 3 All E.R. 561, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Gould, [1968] 1 All E.R. 849, refd to. [para. 63].

Bank of New South Wales v. Piper, [1897] A.C. 383, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Warner, [1969] 2 A.C. 256, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Bourke (1970), 91 W.N. (N.S.W.) 793, refd to. [para. 64].

Thorne v. Motor Trade Association, [1937] A.C. 797, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Smith, [1974] 1 All E.R. 632, refd to. [para. 64].

Queen v. Brown (1975), 10 S.A.S.R. 139, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Rees, [1956] S.C.R. 640, refd to. [para. 66].

Dunlop and Sylvester v. R., 27 N.R. 153; [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 143 [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 4, page 21 [para. 34]; 210 [para. 36].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law, The General Part, pages 141 [para. 35]; 171 [para. 58]; 201 [para. 64].

Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (38th Ed.) (1937) paragraph 2871 [para. 36].

Heilbron Report, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape (1975) [paras. 44 and 72].

Russell on Crime (12th Ed.), vol. 1, pp. 71 [para. 54]; 76 [para. 64].

Hale, Pleas of the Crown, vol. 1, page 42 [para. 54].

Keedy, E.R., Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, 22 Harvard L.R. 82 [para. 56]; 88 [para. 62].

Howard, Criminal Law (3rd Ed.) [para. 59].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law, pages 100 [para. 64]; 102 [para. 74].

Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law (4th Ed.), page 182 [para. 64].

Smith, J.C. (1975), Crim. L.R. 41 [para. 64].

Morris and Turner, Univ. of Queensland L.J., vol. 2, page 247 [para. 64].

Howard, Colin, Univ. of Queensland L.J., vol. 4, page 45 [para. 67].

Counsel:

Douglas McK. Brown, Q.C., for the appellant;

John Hall, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by MARTLAND, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on October 22, 1979.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on May 20, 1980 and the following opinions were filed:

McINTYRE, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 22.

MARTLAND, J. - see paragraphs 23 to 29.

DICKSON, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 30 to 92.

MARTLAND, PIGEON, BEETZ and CHOUINARD, JJ. concurred with McINTYRE, J.

ESTEY, J. concurred with DICKSON, J.