R. v. Van Haarlem, [1992] 1
S.C.R. 982
Gordon John Van Haarlem Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Van Haarlem
File No.: 22492.
1992: April 27.
Present: La Forest, Gonthier,
McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for
british columbia
Constitutional law ‑‑
Charter of Rights ‑‑ Fundamental justice ‑‑ Right to
silence ‑‑ Evidence of accused's conversation with constable ‑‑
Court of Appeal's order to admit evidence not violating accused's s. 7
right to silence ‑‑ New trial properly ordered ‑‑
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 .
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 .
APPEAL from a
judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 543,
135 N.R. 379, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Oppal J. Appeal dismissed.
Brian A. Beresh, for the appellant.
William F. Ehrcke, for the respondent.
The judgment of the
Court was delivered orally by
//La Forest J.//
La
Forest J. -- It will not
be necessary to hear from you Mr. Ehrcke. The Court is ready to hand down
judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Justice Iacobucci.
//Iacobucci J.//
Iacobucci
J. -- We are all of the
view that this appeal, which comes to us as of right, should be dismissed. We
agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the appellant's right to
silence under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
was not violated in this case, and that the Court of Appeal committed no error
either in concluding that the appellant's conversation with Constable McGimpsey
should have been admitted as evidence or in ordering a new trial on the ground
that the conversation might, with a reasonable degree of certainty, have
affected the verdict.
Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
Judgment
accordingly.
Solicitors for the
appellant: Beresh DePoe Cunningham, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the
respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria.
Email this Content