R. v. Hamelin, [2000] 2
S.C.R. 273
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Jean-Pierre Hamelin Respondent
and
The Attorney General for Ontario Intervener
Indexed as: R. v.
Hamelin
Neutral
citation: 2000 SCC 42.
File No.: 27250.
2000: October 4.
Present: McLachlin C.J.
and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Arbour JJ.
on appeal from the court of
appeal for quebec
Criminal
law – Evidence – Expert evidence – Sexual offences -- Whether trial judge erred
in failing to take expert testimony into account.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (1999), 135 C.C.C. (3d) 228,
[1999] Q.J. No. 374 (QL) (sub nom. R. v. J.H.), J.E. 99-599, allowing
the accused’s appeal from his convictions on charges of sexual touching and
ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed, Iacobucci, Major and Arbour JJ.
dissenting.
Jacques
Blais and Carole Lebeuf, for the appellant.
Pierre
Poupart and François Dadour, for the respondent.
M.
David Lepofsky and Christopher Webb, for the intervener.
English
version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
1 L’Heureux-Dubé J. — A majority of
us would allow the appeal. Unlike the Court of Appeal, we are of the view that
the trial judge neither was mistaken about the purpose of the expert evidence
nor abused his discretion in dealing with the expert’s testimony.
2 The
appeal is accordingly allowed by a majority decision.
3 Iacobucci,
Major and Arbour JJ. would have dismissed the appeal and adopted the
reasons of LeBel J.A.
Judgment
accordingly.
Solicitor
for the appellant: The Attorney General’s prosecutor,
Trois-Rivières, Quebec.
Solicitors for the respondent: Poupart & Marquis,
Montréal.
Solicitor
for the intervener: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Email this Content