R. v. Werkman (B.L.),

• Judge: Côté, O'Brien and Watson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2007 ABCA 130
• Citation: (2007), 404 A.R. 378 (CA),2007 ABCA 130,404 AR 378,219 CCC (3d) 406,[2007] AJ No 418 (QL),404 A.R. 378,[2007] A.J. No 418 (QL),(2007), 404 AR 378 (CA)
• Date: 05 April 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

R. v. Werkman (B.L.) (2007), 404 A.R. 378 (CA);

      394 W.A.C. 378

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. AP.103

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Barry Lee Werkman (appellant)

(0503-0087-A; 2007 ABCA 130)

Indexed As: R. v. Werkman (B.L.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, O'Brien and Watson, JJ.A.

April 17, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of conspiring to import cocaine and export marijuana and for importing cocaine. He appealed his convictions.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The accused was convicted of conspiring to import cocaine and export marijuana and of importing cocaine - The convictions were partly based on the evidence of two Crown witnesses who had worked for the accused in transporting motor vehicles containing drugs back and forth between Canada and the United States - The accused appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge failed to provide reasons sufficient for appellate review in part because more pages of the judgment were devoted to the Crown's evidence than to the accused's - The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal - The court stated that while the trial judge did spend a significant portion of her reasons reviewing the evidence of the Crown witnesses, it was the substance of her analysis and findings that was important, not the number of pages written - Nor was it necessary for a judge's reasons to "provide the equivalent of a jury instruction" by summarizing the evidence, as the accused contended - The trial judge rejected the accused's testimony because she found it had no air of reality, was carefully tailored to get around unshakeable facts, and part was incredible - She also found the Crown witnesses' evidence was corroborated by hotel receipts and a recorded telephone conversation - See paragraphs 3 to 6.

Evidence - Topic 4726

Witnesses - Examination - Impeaching credibility - Duty to give witness opportunity to explain - The accused was convicted of conspiring to import cocaine and export marijuana and of importing cocaine - The convictions were partly based on the evidence of two Crown witnesses who had worked for the accused in transporting motor vehicles containing drugs back and forth between Canada and the United States - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in diminishing the weight accorded to his evidence pursuant to the rule in Browne v. Dunn (1893 H.L.) - That rule required that counsel put a matter to a witness involving the witness personally if counsel was later going to present contradictory evidence or was going to impeach the witness' credibility - The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal - See paragraphs 7 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 3].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Lyttle (M.G.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 193; 316 N.R. 52; 184 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Giroux (L.) (2006), 210 O.A.C. 50; 207 C.C.C.(3d) 512 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. McNeill (S.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 346; 48 O.R.(3d) 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Marshall (D.) (2005), 201 O.A.C. 154; 77 O.R.(3d) 81 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2006), 359 N.R. 390 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Kwandahor-Mensah (D.) (2006), 380 A.R. 321; 363 W.A.C. 321; 2006 ABCA 59, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Paris (G.W.) et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 287; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. L.M.H., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 758; 175 N.R. 323; 51 B.C.A.C. 305; 84 W.A.C. 305, affing. (1994), 39 B.C.A.C. 241; 64 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

G.A. Rice, for the respondent;

P.J. Royal, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on April 5, 2007, by Côté, O'Brien and Watson, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court and filed at Edmonton, Alberta, on April 17, 2007.