United States of America v. McVey, (1992) 144 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 30, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 144 N.R. 81 (SCC);97 DLR (4th) 193;[1992] ACS no 95;[1992] SCJ No 95 (QL);[1992] 3 SCR 475;[1993] 1 WWR 289;77 CCC (3d) 1;144 NR 81;JE 92-1762;1992 CanLII 48 (SCC);17 WCB (2d) 585;73 BCLR (2d) 145

USA v. McVey (1992), 144 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

United States of America (appellant) v. Charles McVey II, also known as Charles Julius McVey (respondent)

United States of America (appellant) v. Charles Julius McVey (respondent)

(Nos. 21331; 21751)

Indexed As: United States of America v. McVey

Supreme Court of Canada

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

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

November 19, 1992.

Summary:

McVey was charged in the United States with one count of conspiring to export high-technology electronic components from the United States to the U.S.S.R. without a licence and with ten counts of having made false statements to government authorities (the first charges). The accused was later charged with conspiring to defraud a com­puter company and participating in that scheme (the second charges). The United States commenced separate extradition pro­ceedings and McVey was arrested.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, per Dohm, J., in a decision reported (1988), 4 W.C.B.(2d) 388, issued a warrant of com­mittal respecting the first charges. Macdon­ell, J., in an unreported decision, issued a warrant of committal respecting the second charges. McVey applied for habeas corpus.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, per Bouck, J., in a decision reported (1988), 30 B.C.L.R.(2d) 197, allowed the application respecting the first charges. Paris, J., in an unreported decision, dismissed the applica­tion respecting the second charges. Appeals were filed respecting both decisions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1989] 2 W.W.R. 673; 33 B.C.L.R.(2d) 28; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 413, dismissed the United States' appeal respect­ing the first charges. The court also allowed McVey's appeal respecting the second charges in a decision reported (1989), 40 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 34. In the result the court held that McVey could not be extradited. The United States appealed, the issue being whether at an extradition hearing for the surrender of a fugitive who is accused of having committed a crime in the state requesting his surrender, it is necessary to prove that the act charged constituted a crime listed in the extradition treaty under the law of the requesting state.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals and restored the committal orders.

Extradition - Topic 705

Extraditable offences - Canada-U.S. Treaty - Double criminality - [See Extra­dition - Topic 2704 ].

Extradition - Topic 2652

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Evidence - Proof of foreign law - [See Extradition - Topic 2704 ].

Extradition - Topic 2704

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Procedure - Duty of examining judge - Re foreign law - The Supreme Court of Canada held that at an extradition hearing it is not necessary to prove that the act charged constitutes a crime listed in the extradition treaty under the law of the requesting state - Rather the extradition judge only has a duty to assess whether there is sufficient evidence that the alleged offence would, if committed in Canada, consti­tute a crime mentioned in the treaty according to Canadian law.

Cases Noticed:

Washington (State of) v. Johnson, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 327; 83 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 5 et seq.].

United States v. Allard and Charette, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 861; 122 N.R. 352, refd to. [para. 8 et seq.].

R. v. Parisien, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 950; 85 N.R. 60; 28 O.A.C. 188, refd to. [para. 8].

Debaun, Re (1888), 32 L.C. Jur. 281, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Minervini, [1958] 3 All E.R. 318 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

United States of America and Smith, Re (1984), 15 C.C.C.(3d) 16 (Ont. Co. Ct.), affd. (1984), 16 C.C.C.(3d) 10 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 16, 102].

Wisconsin (State) and Armstrong, Re (1973), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 271, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair, [1991] 2 A.C. 64; [1991] 2 All E.R. 366 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 22 et seq.].

Belgium (Government) v. Postlethwaite et al., [1987] 3 W.L.R. 365; 80 N.R. 369 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23 et seq.].

Puerto Rico (Commonwealth) v. Hernan­dez, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 228, refd to. [para. 24].

Piot, Re (1883), 48 L.T. 120, refd to. [para. 25].

Gross Re (1898), 2 C.C.C. 67 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Thomas, Re (1917), 28 C.C.C. 396, refd to. [para. 25].

In re Nielsen, [1984] A.C. 606 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35 et seq.].

United States Government v. McCaffery, [1984] 2 All E.R. 570 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35 et seq.].

Argentina v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51, refd to. [para. 36 et seq.].

Schmidt v. Canada, United States of America, Ontario (Attorney General) and Metro West Detention Centre, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; 76 N.R. 12; 20 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 36, 37, 40, 50, 58].

Buck v. The King (1917), 55 S.C.R. 133, refd to. [paras. 38, 97, 108].

United States v. Rauscher (1886), 119 U.S. 407, refd to. [paras. 38, 97].

Johnson v. Browne (1907), 205 U.S. 309, refd to. [para. 38].

United States v. Sobell, 142 F.Supp. 515, affd. 244 F.2d 520, cert. denied (1957), 355 U.S. 873, refd to. [para. 38].

United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992), 119 L.Ed.2d 441, refd to. [para. 38].

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [paras. 40, 92].

In re Bellencontre, [1891] 2 Q.B. 122, refd to. [paras. 44, 46, 73, 74].

In re Arton (No. 2), [1896] 1 Q.B. 509, refd to. [paras. 44, 46, 73, 74].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 50].

Cotroni v. Canada (Attorney General), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 219; 3 N.R. 292, refd to. [para. 76].

Riley v. Australia (Commonwealth) (1985), 62 A.L.R. 497 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

Sinclair v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1991] 2 All E.R. 366 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 107].

Statutes Noticed:

Ashburton-Webster Treaty 1842, Can. T.S. 1952, No. 12, art. 10 [para. 70].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 6(1) [para. 92].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 282, sect. 324 [para. 3]; sect. 338 [para. 82].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 321, sect. 366 [para. 3]; sect. 380 [para. 82]; sect. 414 [para. 97].

Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-21, sect. 2 [para. 11 et seq.]; sect. 3 [para. 12 et seq.]; sect. 15 [para. 21 et seq.]; sect. 18(1) [para. 17 et seq.]; sect. 19(b) [para. 22]; sect. 20 [para. 24]; sect. 21 [paras. 22, 24]; sect. 22 [paras. 22, 24, 31]; sect. 25 [para. 24]; sect. 26 [para. 46]; sect. 34 [paras. 46, 84, 102]; Schedule I item 4 [para. 18].

Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, sect. 2(b) [para. 19].

Extradition Act, S.C. 1877, c. 25, sect. 1 [para. 11]; sect. 4 [paras. 12, 13].

Extradition Act (U.K.), 1870, c. 52, sect. 3(1) [para. 22]; sect. 9 [paras. 21, 22]; sect. 10 [paras. 46, 48].

Extradition Treaty (Canada-U.S.), Decem­ber 3, 1971, Can. T.S. 1976, No. 3, art. 1, art. 2 [para. 90 et seq.]; art. (1) [para. 28 et seq.]; art. 2(3) [paras. 28, 32]; art. 8 [paras. 27, 34, 90, 99]; art. 9 [paras. 24, 27, 30]; art. 10 [paras. 27, 29, 94]; art. 12 [para. 96]; art. 12(1) [paras. 38, 90]; Schedule item 12 [para. 111]; item 27 [paras. 82, 83, 111]; Schedule II, form 2 [para. 95].

United States Code, Title 18, sect. 1343 [para. 110].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blanchflower, Michael C., State of Washington and Johnson (1989), 31 Crim. L.Q. 197, generally [para. 45].

Blanchflower, Michael C., Interpretation and Application of Extradition Crime in the Extradition Act (1992), 34 Crim. L.Q. 158, pp. 171, 172 [para. 16]; 173-174 [paras. 16, 108].

Blanchflower, Michael C., Examination of the Law of the Requesting State in Ex­tradition Proceedings (1992), 34 Crim. L.Q. 277, generally [paras. 45, 108].

La Forest, G.V., Extradition To and From Canada (1st Ed. 1961), pp. 37 [para. 74]; 72 [paras. 45, 74].

La Forest, G.V., Extradition To and From Canada (2nd Ed. 1977), pp. 42 [paras. 49, 102]; 52 [para. 74]; 108 [para. 45]; 109-110 [paras. 45, 74].

La Forest, Anne Warner, La Forest's Ex­tradition To and From Canada (3rd Ed. 1991), pp. 3, 4 [para. 16]; 5, 6 [para. 10]; 42 [para. 105]; 51 [paras. 45, 73]; 52, 53 [para. 45]; 54 [paras. 45, 104]; 55 [para. 45]; 74 [paras. 43, 102]; 76 [para. 76]; 84, 85 [para. 22]; 128, 129 [para. 16]; 164 [para. 45]; 165 [paras. 42, 45]; 166-169 [para. 45]; 170 [paras. 45, 108]; 172-174 [para. 45]; 185, 186 [para. 22]; 273 et seq. [para. 11]; 359 et seq. [para. 15].

Piggott, Sir Francis, Extradition: A Treat­ise on the Law Relating to Fugitive Offenders (1910), generally [para. 15]; pp. 124, 125 [para. 45].

Shearer, Ivan Anthony, Extradition in International Law (1971), pp. 137, 138 [para. 49]; 139, 140 [paras. 40, 45]; 141 [para. 45].

United Kingdom, Report of the Royal Commission on Extradition of 1878, p. 8 [para. 44].

Counsel:

S. David Frankel, Q.C., and Cheryl J. Tobias, for the appellant;

Robert S. Anderson and David Lunny, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Farris, Vauchan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 30, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on November 19, 1992, in both official languages, including the following opinions:

La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 86;

Sopinka, J., dissenting (Lamer, C.J.C., and McLachlin, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 87 to 113.