R. v. Jack, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 334
Brian Gordon Jack Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Jack
File No.: 25505.
1997: June 20.
Present: Lamer C.J. and Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba
Criminal law ‑‑ Jury ‑‑ Deliberations ‑‑ Accused convicted of manslaughter ‑‑ Whether trial judge’s exhortation to jury interfered with jury’s deliberations ‑‑ Whether new trial should be ordered.
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. Sims, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 858; R. v. G. (R.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1996), 113 Man. R. (2d) 84, 131 W.A.C. 84, [1996] M.J. No. 456 (QL), dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction on a charge of manslaughter. Appeal allowed, Gonthier J. dissenting.
Richard J. Wolson, Q.C., and Aaron M. London, for the appellant.
Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.
//The Chief Justice//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 The Chief Justice ‑‑ Applying this Court’s decision in R. v. Sims, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 858, as did Madam Justice Helper of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in her dissent with which we are in substantial agreement, and also applying our decision in R. v. G. (R.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Court of Appeal is set aside, and a new trial is ordered. Mr. Justice Gonthier, dissenting, would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by the majority of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, and also applying R. v. G. (R.M.).
2 The appellant has asked for a stay of proceedings given the numerous trials and appeals the accused has been subjected to. Since the Court of Appeal of Manitoba gave reasons, with which we are in full agreement, that they would have entered a stay had the majority allowed the appeal, a stay is therefore entered.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Gindin, Wolson, Simmonds, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the respondent: Richard A. Saull, Winnipeg.
Email this Content