R. v. Reyat (I.S.), (2012) 324 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA)

• Judge: Finch, C.J.B.C., Neilson and MacKenzie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 14, 2012
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2012), 324 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA);2012 BCCA 311

R. v. Reyat (I.S.) (2012), 324 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA);

    551 W.A.C. 311

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.043

Regina (respondent) v. Inderjit Singh Reyat (appellant)

(CA038776; 2012 BCCA 311)

Indexed As: R. v. Reyat (I.S.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C., Neilson and MacKenzie, JJ.A.

July 19, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with perjury as a result of the testimony that he gave at the Air India trial (see [2005] B.C.T.C. 350). A jury found the accused guilty. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 511

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Perjury - Corroboration - The accused was convicted of perjury as a result of the testimony that he gave at the Air India trial - The accused appealed, asserting that the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury that s. 133 of the Criminal Code required that there be corroboration for a perjury conviction - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The purpose of s. 133 was to protect an accused from the false testimony of a single witness swearing against the accused and saying that the accused lied - The case against the accused was circumstantial, based primarily on his own testimony at the Air India trial - The Crown did not call any witnesses to testify to the accused's untruthfulness - The danger that s. 133 was designed to address did not arise - Corroboration was unnecessary - See paragraphs 46 to 51.

Criminal Law - Topic 514

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Perjury - Jury charge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 511 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 514

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Perjury - Jury charge - The accused was charged with perjury as a result of the testimony that he gave at the Air India trial - The charge included 19 particulars of allegedly false statements - The trial judge instructed the jury that, in order to convict, they had to be unanimous that the accused committed perjury with respect to at least one of the statements particularized in the indictment, but the individual jurors did not have to be unanimous on any one of the particulars alleged to constitute perjury - The jury found the accused guilty - The accused appealed, asserting that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be unanimous on at least one of the 19 particulars in the indictment - He asserted that the charge as given left open the possibility that there was no juror unanimity on any of the 19 particulars and that the court could not know which, if any, particulars were accepted as proven by all jurors - The accused also asserted that it was unfair to group multiple incidents under the umbrella of a single transaction - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the assertions - The accused cited no authority to support his contention that the 19 particulars were not properly classified as a single transaction - The necessary elements or ingredients for perjury were consistent among the 19 particulars and there was evidence on which the jury could have found each to have been proven - See paragraphs 26 to 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 4323

Procedure - Jury - Unanimity or disagreement among jurors - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 514 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4364

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding unanimity and disagreement - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 514 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4399.2

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Duty to isolate evidence respecting each particular - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 514 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Pearson (E.) (1994), 60 Q.A.C. 103; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 535 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. G.L.M. (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 102; 208 W.A.C. 102; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 383; 1999 BCCA 467, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. S.M.R. (2004), 190 O.A.C. 271; 189 C.C.C.(3d) 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Grewal (1987), 19 O.A.C. 149 (C.A.), dist. [para. 20].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (2007), 239 B.C.A.C. 110; 396 W.A.C. 110; 219 C.C.C.(3d) 187; 2007 BCCA 191, dist. [para. 39].

R. v. Bouchard (1982), 13 Man.R.(2d) 344; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Eriksen (J.A.) (2006), 230 B.C.A.C. 216; W.A.C. 216; 2006 YKCA 13, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Neveu (2004), 184 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 133 [para. 46].

Counsel:

I. Donaldson, Q.C., for the appellant;

L.T. Doust, Q.C., and W.B. Milman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 14, 2012, by Finch, C.J.B.C., Neilson and MacKenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Finch, C.J.B.C., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on July 19, 2012.