SUPREME
COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. MacKay, [2005] 3 S.C.R.
607, 2005 SCC 75
|
Date: 20051214
Docket: 30643
|
Between:
Kenneth David
MacKay
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The
Queen
Respondent
Coram: McLachlin
C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Reasons for
judgment:
(paras. 1 to 4)
|
|
McLachlin C.J. (Binnie, LeBel,
Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring)
|
______________________________
R. v.
Mackay, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 607, 2005 SCC 75
Kenneth David MacKay Appellant
v.
Her Majesty
The Queen Respondent
Indexed
as: R. v. MacKay
Neutral
citation: 2005 SCC 75.
File
No.: 30643.
2005:
December 14.
Present: McLachlin
C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from
the court of appeal for saskatchewan
Criminal law — Trial — Charge to jury — Lengthy charge not
misleading jury or having adverse impact on fairness of trial.
Criminal law — Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Accused
convicted of first degree murder — Sufficient evidence to support verdict.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952]
2 S.C.R. 495; R. v. Lawrence, [1982] A.C. 510.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Tallis,
Cameron and Gerwing JJ.A.) (2004), 241 Sask. R. 238,
313 W.A.C. 238, [2004] S.J. No. 103 (QL),
2004 SKCA 24, upholding the guilty verdict against the accused for
first degree murder. Appeal dismissed.
William H. Roe, Q.C., for the appellant.
Anthony B. Gerein, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1
The Chief Justice — We are
all of the view that this appeal should be dismissed. On the issue of the
charge, we are satisfied that, while it was not perfect, it was adequate. The
function of instructions to the jury is to “explain the relevant law and so
relate it to the evidence that the jury may appreciate the issues or questions
they must pass upon in order to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty” (Azoulay
v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495, at p. 503). The charge
here contained no error of law or fact, and it set out the issues and the
essential evidence bearing on them. The charge was lengthy — 2.5 days —
and the reading for several continuous hours of extended passages of evidence
from the judge’s notes is a practice to be discouraged. As the Saskatchewan Court
of Appeal, citing English authority, pointed out:
A direction is seldom improved and may be considerably damaged by
copious recitations from the total content of a judge’s note book.
((2004), 241 Sask. R. 238, 2004 SKCA 24, at
para. 14 (quoting Lord Hailsham L.C. in R. v. Lawrence,
[1982] A.C. 510 (H.L.), at p. 519))
2
However, in this case we are satisfied the length of the charge did not
mislead or confuse the jury or otherwise have an adverse impact on the fairness
of the trial. Despite the inordinate length of the judge’s instructions, the
jury was ultimately left with a clear understanding of its duty and adequate
guidance as to how it was to be discharged.
3
The second issue is whether there was evidence to support the verdict of
first degree murder, on the ground that the accused committed the murder in the
course of a sexual assault on the victim. The evidence is circumstantial.
However, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for a jury,
properly instructed and acting reasonably, to conclude that the murder occurred
during the course of a sexual assault.
4
For these reasons, we would dismiss the appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Roe & Company,
Saskatoon.
Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General for
Saskatchewan, Regina.