R. v. Roberts (E.W.), (2005) 363 A.R. 26 (SCC)

• Judge: Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 363 A.R. 26 (SCC);2005 SCC 3;247 DLR (4th) 402;329 NR 8;25 CR (6th) 208;363 AR 26;[2005] SCJ No 5 (QL);[2005] 1 SCR 22;44 Alta LR (4th) 1;191 CCC (3d) 466

R. v. Roberts (E.W.) (2005), 363 A.R. 26 (SCC);

    343 W.A.C. 26

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: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JA.146

Eifion Wyn Roberts (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(30282; 2005 SCC 3; 2005 CSC 3)

Indexed As: R. v. Roberts (E.W.)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

January 27, 2005.

Summary:

The accused appealed from his conviction for second degree murder.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Conrad, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 346 A.R. 325; 320 W.A.C. 325, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Fish, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1285

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - Provocation - Jury charge - An oil company had a surface lease for an oil well on the accused's farm - The accused had a civil discussion with a company official (Kent) about remedying pollution caused by the well - Later, the accused saw Kent approaching his house - The accused grabbed a loaded automatic pistol and went to meet Kent - The accused claimed that Kent was angry about having to remove contaminated soil and said that the accused would lose his barn and house - The accused told Kent that he would arrest him for trespassing unless Kent returned to the leased land - Kent allegedly called the accused a name and said that he would tear his head off - The accused shot Kent, including four shots to the head - The accused was convicted of second degree murder - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the trial judge did not have to instruct the jury on the defence of provocation where, inter alia, the defence had no air of reality - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal was correct in finding no air of reality supporting the objective components of the test for the defence of provocation.

Criminal Law - Topic 4386

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Judge's duty to determine if defence available on evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1285 ].

Counsel:

Charles B. Davison, for the appellant;

Eric Tolppanen, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Abbey Hunter Davison, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

Alberta Justice, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 15, 2004, before Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on January 27, 2005, including the following opinions:

Major, J. (Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 2;

Fish, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 3 to 4.