R. v. Roberts (J.G.), 2011 SKQB 123

• Judge: Mills, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 01, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2011 SKQB 123;(2011), 372 Sask.R. 180 (QB)

R. v. Roberts (J.G.) (2011), 372 Sask.R. 180 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.005

James Gregory Roberts (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(2010 Q.B.A. No. 7; 2011 SKQB 123)

Indexed As: R. v. Roberts (J.G.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Mills, J.

April 1, 2011.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography on the grounds that the trial judge failed to give sufficient reasons for judgment, the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence and the trial judge failed to use the appropriate R. v. D.W. analysis respecting the burden of proof and reasonable doubt.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) - The accused appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography on the ground that the trial judge failed to give sufficient reasons for judgment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The function of reasons for judgment was to inform the parties as to why the decision was made, to provide public accountability for the decision and to permit effective appellate review - The judge's reasons were functionally sufficient, even though they could have been better organized, more orderly and more expansive - The court noted that "few judgments are perfect" - Reviewing the decision as a whole, it was clear that the judge found that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the child pornography found on his personal computer - See paragraphs 2 to 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - [See Courts - Topic 583 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7659

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - Grounds - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - The accused appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence - In dismissing the appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench referenced the test to be used: "the court of appeal is entitled to review the evidence re-examining it and re-weighing it, but only for the purpose of determining if it is reasonably capable of supporting the trial judge's conclusion; that is, determining whether the trier of fact could reasonably have reached the conclusion it did in the evidence before it ... Provided this threshold test is met, the court of appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the trial judge, nor permit doubts it may have to persuade it to order a new trial" - See paragraph 11.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Major (W.S.) (2004), 241 Sask.R. 306; 313 W.A.C. 306; 2004 SKCA 32, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Bobyn (M.) (2010), 357 Sask.R. 211; 2010 SKQB 240, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Tesar (J.) (2010), 373 Sask.R. 13; 2010 SKQB 449, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Panko (A.) (2010), 276 O.A.C. 49; 2010 ONCA 660, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. J.W.A., [2010] A.R. Uned. 694; 2010 ABCA 406, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Coates (G.) (2009), 343 Sask.R. 228; 472 W.A.C. 228; 2009 SKCA 128, refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

Chanda J. Tannis, for the appellant;

Cynthia L. Alexander, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Mills, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on April 1, 2011.