R. v. Millington, 2017 SCC 53, [2017] 2 SCR 384

  

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. Millington, 2017 SCC 53, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 384

Appeal heard: October 30, 2017 Judgment rendered: October 30, 2017 Docket: 37235

 

Between:

Kwesi Millington

Appellant

 

and

 

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

 

 

Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.

 

Reasons for Judgment: (para. 1)

Abella J. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

 

 

R. v. Millington, 2017 SCC 53, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 384

 

 

 

Kwesi Millington                                                                                             Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Millington

 

 

 

2017 SCC 53

 

 

 

File No.:  37235.

 

 

 

2017:  October 30.

 

 

 

Present:  Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

 

                    Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict — Misapprehension of evidence — Issue estoppel — Abuse of process — Accused and three other RCMP officers charged with perjury after providing inaccurate testimony at inquest into death of visitor tasered by accused at airport — Separate trials held — Accused and another officer convicted but two officers acquitted — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge committed no reviewable errors in findings of fact, did not misapprehend evidence and did not err in allowing Crown to pursue issue of collusion at trial of accused — Conviction upheld.

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Lowry, Harris and Dickson JJ.A.), 2016 BCCA 293, [2016] B.C.J. No. 1491 (QL), 2016 CarswellBC 1942 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction entered by Ehrcke J., 2015 BCSC 515, [2015] B.C.J. No. 627 (QL), 2015 CarswellBC 867 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed, Côté J. dissenting.

 

                    Glen Orris, Q.C., for the appellant.

 

                    Richard C. C. Peck, Q.C., Eric V. Gottardi and Tony C. Paisana, for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]                              Abella J. — A majority would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Court of Appeal. Justice Côté, dissenting, would have ordered a new trial on the basis that the finding of collusion was unreasonable and tainted the other findings of the trial judge.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitor for the appellant:  Glen Orris, Q.C. Law Corp., Vancouver.

 

                    Solicitors for the respondent:  Peck and Company, Vancouver.