R. v. Walker (K.J.), (2010) 362 Sask.R. 169 (CA)

• Judge: Klebuc, C.J.S., Richards and Smith, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: December 11, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2010), 362 Sask.R. 169 (CA);2010 SKCA 84

R. v. Walker (K.J.) (2010), 362 Sask.R. 169 (CA);

    500 W.A.C. 169

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.001

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Kimberley Joseph Walker (appellant)

(No. 1323; 2010 SKCA 84)

Indexed As: R. v. Walker (K.J.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Klebuc, C.J.S., Richards and Smith, JJ.A.

June 30, 2010.

Summary:

A court composed of a judge and jury found the accused guilty of second degree murder. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 127

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to be present at trial - The accused was charged with second degree murder - During the trial, the trial judge summoned both Crown and defence counsel to her chambers, informed them of her views of the case and asked whether plea bargaining was pursued - The accused was not present at this meeting - The accused was convicted - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ordered a new trial - The accused was not present during "the whole of his ... trial" as required by s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code (Can.) - In addition, this violation was not saved under s. 686(1)(b)(iv) where the accused suffered actual prejudice - If the criminal justice system was to be perceived as being fair and impartial, judges could not convene private and unrecorded meetings in mid-trial for the purpose of expressing their views about the substance of the proceedings and making inquiries about plea bargaining - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 5049

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Where accused denied right to be present during whole of trial - [See Criminal Law - Topic 127 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hertrich, Stewart and Skinner (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 510 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321; 87 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 222 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Cloutier (1988), 27 O.A.C. 246; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Côté and Vézina, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 2; 64 N.R. 93, consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Laws (D.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 353; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 516; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 301 (C.A.), consd. [para. 22].

R. v. A.W.C. (2005), 367 A.R. 50; 346 W.A.C. 50; 2005 ABCA 96, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Giroux (L.) (2006), 210 O.A.C. 50; 207 C.C.C.(3d) 512 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Mulligan (B.C.) (1999), 250 A.R. 264; 213 W.A.C. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Ortiz, [2008] O.J. No. 2916, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. James (D.) (2009), 248 O.A.C. 350; 244 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 2009 ONCA 366, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Joinson (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 542 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Van (D.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716; 388 N.R. 200; 251 O.A.C. 295; 2009 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Mohebtash (M.) (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 70; 401 W.A.C. 70; 220 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 2007 BCCA 307, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.) (2006), 384 A.R. 318; 367 W.A.C. 318; 207 C.C.C.(3d) 157; 2006 ABCA 36, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. L.W.T. (2008), 307 Sask.R. 246; 417 W.A.C. 246; 230 C.C.C.(3d) 220; 2008 SKCA 17, refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 650(1) [para. 15]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iv) [para. 17].

Counsel:

Balfour Q.H. Der, Q.C., for the appellant;

W. Dean Sinclair, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on December 11, 2009, by Klebuc, C.J.S., Richards and Smith, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Richards, J.A., on June 30, 2010.