R. v. Symonds, (1983) 1 O.A.C. 103 (CA)

• Judge: Martin, Goodman and Robins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 12, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1983), 1 O.A.C. 103 (CA)

R. v. Symonds (1983), 1 O.A.C. 103 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Symonds

Indexed As: R. v. Symonds

Ontario Court of Appeal

Martin, Goodman and Robins, JJ.A.

December 22, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of possession of stolen property contrary to s. 312(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The accused appealed his conviction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, because of cumulative errors by the trial judge.

Criminal Law - Topic 53

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - After being cautioned by police, counsel for the accused advised that the accused had nothing to say - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting this information into evidence, where there was no issue to which the accused's failure to reply was relevant - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions regarding evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - The accused was charged with possession of stolen goods - The Crown's case consisted of the testimony of the person for whom the accused agreed to store the goods - The accused claimed that this person was promised immunity in exchange for his evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that a conspiracy between the witness and the police to implicate the accused was necessary to a finding that the witness testified in return for immunity from prosecution - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 4360

Procedure - Charter or directions to jury - Directions regarding inferences from silence - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that the accused had a right to remain silent and that they could not draw any adverse inference from the accused's exercise of this right following being advised by his lawyer to say nothing - See paragraphs 7 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions re evidence of credibility of accused - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a trial judge erred in instructing the jury that a absolute discharge which had been granted to the accused was relevant to the accused's credibility - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Robertson (1975), 29 C.R.N.S. 141, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Danson (1982), 35 O.R.(2d) 777, refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Victor Paisley, for the appellant;

Brendan P. Evans, for the Crown, respondent.

This appeal was heard before Martin, Goodman and Robins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, on December 12, 1983. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Martin, J.A., and released on December 22, 1983.