Case Studies

Question 1

R v Macmillan Bloedel (2002)

Answer 1

• A possible problem/ leak in the pipes of the company was brought to attention
• They tested the pipes and didn’t find any leaks and determined they were sound
• Environmental inspector from the company and determined they were an environmental problem and recommended they fix it
• They replaced some of the pipes and determined the rest were fine and didn’t appear to have an intention of fixing them in the near future
• An officer saw diesel fuel leaking and the accused was charged with the offense of permitting a dangerous substance into water frequented by fish
• Accused was convicted at trial but allowed an appeal and the conviction was set aside
• The crown appealed to the british columbia court of appeal
• Crowns appeal was dismissed
• Judges held that conditions that produced the leak were not carelessly created, the accused honestly believed the pipes were sound
• Leak was caused by microbial corrosion so the leak was not foreseeable
• Majority held that the fact that the spill was not foreseeable wa snot sufficient defense
• There was no evidence the accused had plans to to protect from the environmental risk of the pipes

Question 2

R v Caslake (1998)

Answer 2

• Officer found caslakes car parked on the side of highway and questioned him, he said he was relieving himself in the bushes
• Officer found a bag of marijuana near where caslake was and arrested him
• His car was towed and 6 hours after the arrest an RCMP officer unlocked the car and searched it, caslake never gave permission and boyle didn’t have a warrant
• The officer found 1400 cash and 2 bags of cocaine
• Boyle testifies that he conducted the search to take inventory of the car because that’s what policy requires, to safeguard the possessions and check the condition of the vehicle
• caslake was convicted at trial and his appeal was dismissed
• Majority held that the search was unreasonable and to justify it there must have been a reasonable purpose for the search and boyle did not have this purpose in mind when searching the vehicle, therefore the search was not justified
• However, the court held that including/ allowing this evidence would not risk the integrity of the justice system and they convicted caslake

Question 3

R v Hall (2002)

Answer 3

• Man arrested for murder with strong evidence against him
• Judge was satisfied that hall wouldnt be a threat and that he would appear in court
• Judge still did not grant bail because the community was scared and it was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice
• Majority of the supreme court agreed with the judge and said tey did not make a mistake
• They stated that sec 515 of the criminal code itself was unconstitutional because it is too open ended and is inconsistent with sec 11 of the charter and ‘innocent until proven guilty’
• They ruled that public confidence is essential to the proper functioning of the system
• Minority said the judge was wrong because they had believed hall was not a threat and s 515 is entirely unconstitutional, not just one part, it’s too vague and allows for society’s fear to be ruled a smore important that charter/ bail rights

Question 4

R v Williams (1998)

Answer 4

• Williams pleaded not guilty to armed robbery
• He stated someone else did the crime
• He applied to challenge jurors for racial bias as he was aboriginal
• Trial judge found that this claim was supported and there was a reasonable possibility of bias
• Trial judge rejected the claim because it was not sufficient since there was no reasonable possibility that it would translate to partiality in the trial
• Jurors can be expected to put aside their biases and the courts have safeguards against bias
• Judge decided that allowing the challenge would cause more disruption/ have more cost than the possibility of a fairer trial
• He was convicted and unsuccessful in his appeal to the BC court
• Eventually his appeal was allowed and a new trial was conducted
• Supreme court held that the judge should have allowed the challenge because safeguards cannot always eliminate bias
• When doubts are raised its better to allow challenges/ for them to be examined to allow for a fair trial and protect discrimination rights

Question 5

Defence Disclosure

Answer 5

• Debate over defence disclosure: Should defence be obliged to disclose evidence that might harm the accused’s case?
• Crown prosecutors mandated to disclose all relevant evidence to uphold accused’s Charter rights.
• Ken Murray, in Paul Bernardo’s trial, possessed incriminating videotapes initially undisclosed to the Crown.
• Murray intended to use tapes to challenge witness credibility but eventually handed them over.
• Murray faced charges for failure to disclose.
• Different viewpoints emerged:
  1. Justice Gravely suggested Murray might have believed no legal duty to disclose until later.
  2. Murray defended his actions, while others like Barry Fox disagreed.
  3. Supreme Court Justice Lamer stated defence in Canada not obligated to cooperate with Crown.
  4. Calls for clearer rules on defence disclosure due to existing regulations’ lack of clarity.
• Debate centers on whether defence should disclose evidence that could harm the accused.
• Crown prosecutors must disclose all relevant evidence to protect the accused’s rights.
• Lack of clear rules on defence disclosure creates controversy.
• Views vary on whether defence lawyers have a legal duty to disclose evidence.
• Calls for clearer regulations to address ambiguity in disclosure obligations.