R. v. Scott, (1980) 22 A.R. 399 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Horrocks, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 30, 1980
• Citations: (1980), 22 A.R. 399 (ProvCt)

R. v. Scott (1980), 22 A.R. 399 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Scott

Indexed As: R. v. Scott

Alberta Provincial Court

Horrocks, P.C.J.

May 30, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of objections by an accused's counsel regarding the Crown's cross-examination of the accused, the necessity of a voir dire and the compellability of an accused on a voir dire. The accused was charged with driving after consuming an excessive amount of alcohol contrary to s. 236 of the Criminal Code. At the conclusion of the Crown's case the accused took the witness stand. The Crown cross-examined the accused about the voluntariness and contents of statements made to the police at the time of the offence. The accused admitted that the statements were voluntary and disclosed their contents. The accused's counsel objected to the procedures being followed by the Crown. The Alberta Provincial Court overruled the objections.

Criminal Law - Topic 5256

Evidence and witnesses - Admissions - How made - Manner of making admissions - The accused was charged with driving after consuming an excessive amount of alcohol contrary to s. 236 of the Criminal Code - After the Crown completed its case the accused took the witness stand - The Crown cross-examined the accused on questions of fact which the accused answered without objection from his counsel - The Crown argued that the accused's answers without objection by his counsel amounted to admissions of fact within s. 582 of the Criminal Code and a waiver of a voir dire - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused's answers accompanied by his counsel's silence were not admissions - The Provincial Court held that an admission within s. 582 must be specific and not merely silence - See paragraph 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 5332

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Necessity and purpose of - The accused was charged with driving after consuming an excessive amount of alcohol contrary to s. 236 of the Criminal Code - At the conclusion of the Crown's case the accused took the witness stand - The Crown cross-examined the accused on statements given to the police at the time of the alleged offence - The accused testified that the statements were voluntary - The accused's counsel objected on the ground that a voir dire was necessary - The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the objection on the ground that the accused's testimony relating to voluntariness was sufficient - See paragraphs 8 to 11.

Evidence - Topic 5628

Witnesses - Competency and compellability - Voir dire - Criminal trial - Compellability of accused - The Alberta Provincial Court held that an accused on the witness stand was not a compellable witness on a voir dire - See paragraph 10.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Drake (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 396, consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Ryckman (1972), 19 C.R.N.S. 14, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Ament (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 83 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Powell (1976), 9 N.R. 361; 28 C.C.C.(2d) 148, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Erven (1978), 25 N.R. 49; 44 C.C.C.(2d) 76, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Warickshall (1783), 168 E.R. 234, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Gauthier (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 114 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Harris v. New York (1971), 401 U.S. 225, consd. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 236 [para. 1]; sect. 237 [para. 6]; sect. 582 [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ratushny, E.J., Statements of An Accused (1972), 14 Crim.L.Q. 306, p. 330 [para. 5].

Counsel:

David J. McNab, for the Crown;

Adam W. Germain, for the defendant.

This case was heard by HORROCKS, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court.

On May 30, 1980, HORROCKS, P.C.J., delivered the following judgment: