R. v. Pittiman (R.), (2006) 346 N.R. 65 (SCC)

• Judge: Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 10, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 346 N.R. 65 (SCC);2006 SCC 9;EYB 2006-102797;346 NR 65;[2006] 1 SCR 381;68 WCB (2d) 612;206 CCC (3d) 6;36 CR (6th) 87;JE 2006-672;209 OAC 388;[2006] CarswellOnt 1695;264 DLR (4th) 1;[2006] SCJ No 9 (QL);[2006] ACS no 9

R. v. Pittiman (R.) (2006), 346 N.R. 65 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. MR.015

Roopnarine Pittiman (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(31070; 2006 SCC 9; 2006 CSC 9)

Indexed As: R. v. Pittiman (R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ.

March 23, 2006.

Summary:

The accused and two others were charged with sexually assaulting the complainant. Only the accused was convicted. He was sen­tenced to three years' imprisonment, less credit for 126 days time served. The accused appealed, arguing that the verdicts were in­consistent and that his conviction was there­fore unreasonable. He also appealed his sen­tence, alleging that it was excessive and unduly harsh.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 199 O.A.C. 113, dismissed the ap­peal. Borins, J.A., dissenting, would have set aside the conviction. The accused ap­pealed his conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4395

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re inconsistent verdicts - The accused and two others were charged with sexually assaulting the com­plainant - Only the accused was convicted - The accused appealed - He submitted, in­ter alia, that the verdict was unreasonable because the Crown presented the case as an all-or-nothing case - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The ac­cused appealed - The Supreme Court of Can­ada dismissed the appeal - There was a rational basis for reconciling the different verdicts - The Crown's case against the ac­cused was stronger than that against his co-accused - Further, the jury was not bound to accept the Crown's theory - The jury was correctly instructed to arrive at a ver­dict separately in regard to each accused - See paragraphs 1 to 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 4438

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dis­missals - Inconsistent verdicts - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 4395 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4438

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dis­missals - Inconsistent verdicts - The ac­cused and two others were charged with sex­ually assaulting the com­plainant - Only the accused was convicted - On appeal, the accused submitted that the verdict was un­rea­sonable - The appeal was dismissed, with one judge dissenting - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the dissenting ap­peal court judge erred in stating that "the focus in an incon­sistent verdict case is the aber­rant verdict, which in this case is the acquittal of the co-accused" - The court stated that "While an appellate court inevi­tably com­pares the basis for acquittals as well as convictions in assess­ing inconsist­ent ver­dicts, the decis­ive question is not whether the acquittals are reasonable, but whether the conviction was not" - See para­graph 13.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McLaughlin (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 562 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. McShannock (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 53 (Ont. C.A.), agreed with [para. 7].

R. v. Tillekaratna (D.) (1998), 108 O.A.C. 281; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 549 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Wile and Capucciti (1990), 40 O.A.C. 192; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 85 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 10].

R. v. Bergeron (1998), 132 C.C.C.(3d) 45 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Harvey (A.W.) (2001), 152 O.A.C. 162; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

James Lockyer, for the appellant;

Leslie Paine, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Lockyer Campbell Posner, Toronto, On­tario, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 10, 2006, by Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Charron, J., delivered the following decision for the court in both of­ficial languages on March 23, 2006.