R. v. Sarson (J.A.),

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Citation: (1996), 197 N.R. 125 (SCC),91 OAC 124,[1996] 2 SCR 223,36 CRR (2d) 1,49 CR (4th) 75,135 DLR (4th) 402,[1996] CarswellOnt 3983,1996 CanLII 200 (SCC),197 NR 125,107 CCC (3d) 21,[1996] SCJ No 63 (QL)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 22 February 1996

R. v. Sarson (J.A.) (1996), 197 N.R. 125 (SCC)

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

MLB headnote and full text

John Alexander Sarson (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24233)

Indexed As: R. v. Sarson (J.A.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci

and Major, JJ.

May 30, 1996.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 15 years. The accused's conviction was entered under s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code (constructive murder provision) which was struck down 11 months later by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Vaillancourt as being contrary to the Charter. In light of the R. v. Vaillancourt decision, the accused applied for habeas corpus.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported (1992), 73 C.C.C.(3d) 1, dismissed the application. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in an en­dorsement reported (1994), 88 C.C.C.(3d) 95 and in paragraph 20 below, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to the accused either at common law or under the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.11

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Habeas corpus - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the availability of habeas corpus as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter - See paragraphs 37 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.11

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Habeas corpus - The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder (i.e., constructive murder, Criminal Code, s. 213(d)) - Sec­tion 213(d) was subsequently declared unconstitutional in R. v. Vaillancourt (S.C.C.) - In light of Vaillancourt, the accused argued that his continued deten­tion breached s. 7 of the Charter and he was entitled to habeas corpus under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that habeas corpus was not available where the accused's continued detention did not breach the rules of fun­damental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - The court noted that the accused pleaded guilty, the evidence was overwhelming, he could have been convicted under other Code provisions and he agreed to the period of ineligibility - See paragraphs 37 to 50.

Crown - Topic 3206

Prerogative remedies - Mercy - The accused was convicted of second murder under s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code (i.e., a constructive murder provision) which was subsequently declared unconstitutional - In light of the declaration, the accused sought habeas corpus - The Supreme Court of Canada held that habeas corpus was unavailable either at common law or under the Charter - The court stated how­ever that when s. 213(d) was in force it was sufficiently broad to permit conviction of persons who played an extremely limited role in a homicide - The court noted that a possible avenue of redress for persons convicted under s. 213(d) was in the exer­cise of the Royal prerogative of mercy - "The Royal prerogative of mercy is the only potential remedy for persons who have exhausted their rights of appeal and are unable to show that their sentence fails to accord with the Charter" - See para­graph 51.

Habeas Corpus - Topic 2

General - When available - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed when the writ of habeas corpus was available at common law - See paragraphs 21 to 36 - The court also discussed the availability of habeas corpus as a Charter remedy - See para­graphs 37 to 50.

Habeas Corpus - Topic 2

General - When available - At common law - The accused pleaded guilty to sec­ond degree murder (i.e., constructive mur­der, Criminal Code, s. 213(d)) - Section 213(d) was subsequently declared uncon­stitutional in R. v. Vaillancourt (S.C.C.) - In light of Vaillancourt, the accused sought habeas corpus - The Supreme Court of Canada held that habeas corpus was not available under the common law - The warrant of committal was regular on its face - The convicting court was a superior court of criminal jurisdiction having gen­eral jurisdiction over the offence and its jurisdiction was immune to all collateral attacks and could only be challenged di­rectly on appeal - Further, the accused could not directly or collaterally attack his conviction on the basis of subsequently decided judicial authorities because he was not "in the judicial system" - His convic­tion was settled law and subject to res judicata - See paragraphs 21 to 36.

Habeas Corpus - Topic 2

General - When available - Under Charter - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8380.11 ].

Habeas Corpus - Topic 1501

Bars to issue of writ - General - [See first Habeas Corpus - Topic 2 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 1].

Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.R.(3d) 193; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 204, dist. [para. 17].

R. v. Gamble - see Gamble v. R.

R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51, appld. [paras. 19, 53].

R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 713; 108 N.R. 147, appld. [paras. 19, 56].

Sproule, In Re (1886), 12 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Gamble (1978), 9 A.R. 179; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 415 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1978] 2 S.C.R. vii; 23 N.R. 625; 12 A.R. 448, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 15]; sect. 24(1) [para. 37].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 15].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 213(d) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), p. 1248 [paras. 35, 54].

Manson, Allan, Implications for Persons Convicted of Murder (1987), 60 C.R.(3d) 339, p. 345 [para. 51].

Counsel:

Timothy E. Breen and James Stribopoulos, for the appellant;

Robert W. Hubbard and Marlene Thomas, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Kenneth L. Campbell and Gary T. Trotter, for the respondent, the Attorney General for Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Rosen, Fleming, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

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

This appeal was heard on February 22, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on May 30, 1996, including the following opinions:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 52;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier and Mc­Lachin, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 53 to 57.