Gerald N. Allbright

The appellant, an RCMP officer, assaulted a prisoner and was convicted of a major service offence under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

He was subsequently charged with common assault under the Criminal Code for the same incident.

The appellant argued that the criminal charge violated his right under section 11(h) of the Charter not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while section 11 applies to proceedings involving true penal consequences, the appellant was not being tried for the same offence.

The service offence was an internal disciplinary matter, whereas the criminal charge was a public offence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of his ex-wife.

The Crown advanced two theories: that the appellant personally killed the victim, or that he aided and abetted someone else to do so.

The trial judge instructed the jury that they could convict if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder under either theory, without requiring unanimity on which specific theory occurred.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the Criminal Code makes the distinction between a principal and an aider/abettor legally irrelevant, and therefore jury unanimity on the exact mode of participation is not required provided all jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the crime.