Dirk Ryneveld

The aboriginal accused was charged with robbery and sought to challenge potential jurors for cause based on widespread racial prejudice against aboriginal people in the community.

The trial judge dismissed the application, and the accused was convicted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and directed a new trial, holding that evidence of widespread racial prejudice in the community establishes a realistic potential for partiality, entitling the accused to challenge prospective jurors for cause under section 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which had allowed an appeal from their acquittals and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting reasons of Seaton J.A. in the Court of Appeal, finding that the trial turned on the reliability of witnesses and inferences to be drawn from their evidence, neither of which raised a question of law.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside, and the acquittals entered at trial were restored.

The appellant, a young offender, was convicted of second-degree murder based on a second statement made to police after an initial statement was ruled inadmissible.

The first statement was excluded because the appellant was not advised of the possibility of being transferred to adult court, vitiating his waiver of the right to counsel.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the second statement was also inadmissible.

It was causally connected to the first statement, as the first statement was a substantial factor leading to the making of the second, and the taint of the initial Charter and Young Offenders Act breaches was not cured by a subsequent consultation with counsel.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.