James Duncan Lockyer

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his young niece.

The complainant disclosed the assaults several years later, and her testimony was uncorroborated.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, and the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, with one judge dissenting on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to believe the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant and that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant brought a second original application for bail pending appeal from a second degree murder conviction after an earlier bail application and review had been dismissed.

The court held that a fresh application may proceed only where there has been a material change in circumstances affecting one or more of the statutory factors in s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court found such a change based on significantly stronger grounds of appeal, improved evidence that the applicant would surrender, and extraordinary delay caused by the pursuit of fresh evidence.

Balancing enforceability against reviewability under the public interest branch, the court concluded that further detention was not necessary and granted release pending appeal.

The appellant appealed a conviction for second degree murder arising from a fatal shooting after a house party.

The central issue was whether the trial judge's jury re-instruction on reasonable doubt improperly required jurors to articulate a logical reason for their doubt and further referred to the notion of a timid juror.

The court held that this wording was contrary to established appellate authority and inconsistent with the proper reasonable doubt framework.

In the context of a closely contested case, the error was reversible and necessitated a new trial.

The appellant appealed a second degree murder conviction arising from an entirely circumstantial prosecution based on motive, forensic evidence, and prior statements attributed to the deceased.

The principal issue was whether the jury charge was deficient for failing to distinguish direct from circumstantial evidence and for using pre-Lifchus language on reasonable doubt.

The court held that no formulaic circumstantial-evidence instruction was required so long as the jury was clearly told that guilt had to be the only reasonable inference proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also held that the Crown's speculative suggestions, the manslaughter instruction, and the cautions concerning hearsay evidence did not cause unfairness warranting a new trial.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal that quashed the accused's convictions for sexual offences and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge's conceded errors in his charge on reasonable doubt and re-charge on similar fact evidence could not be cured by the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown brought applications to quash two appeals purportedly brought as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applications were based on recent amendments to the Criminal Code that eliminated the right to appeal without leave where an acquittal is overturned by a court of appeal and a new trial ordered.

The appellants argued their right to appeal had accrued before the amendments came into force.

The Court held that the right to appeal as of right is only acquired when the court of appeal renders its judgment.

Since the conditions precedent were not fulfilled before the amendments took effect, the appeals were quashed.

The police stopped a car for speeding and, after the driver could not produce documentation, conducted a computer check.

While waiting, the officer questioned the passenger and noticed garbage bags full of new clothing with price tags in the back seat and trunk.

The driver and passenger were charged with possession of stolen property.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the passenger had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle or the bags.

Although the search violated the driver's section 8 Charter rights, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) because the breach was minimal, the evidence was reliable, and its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Court of Appeal setting aside a stay of proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that while there was a breach of the appellant's right to make full answer and defence, an adjournment was the appropriate remedy rather than a stay of proceedings.

The Court also noted that the test for determining the degree of relevance required for Crown production is set out in Stinchcombe and O'Connor, and the phrase 'an air of reality' should be avoided.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the included offence of manslaughter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, applying the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The Court held that the jury, by convicting of murder, must have found subjective foresight of death, and it was impossible to conclude they did so merely because they were unable to find subjective foresight of bodily harm for manslaughter.

The appellant, who suffered from schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, was arrested on outstanding warrants and subsequently confessed to a murder and several robberies.

He waived his right to counsel multiple times, despite advice from a lawyer to remain silent, claiming voices in his head compelled him to confess.

The trial judge excluded the statements, finding the appellant lacked the capacity to appreciate the consequences of waiving his rights, leading to an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'operating mind' test applies to the confession rule and the waiver of Charter rights, requiring only that the accused have sufficient cognitive capacity to understand what they are saying and that it can be used against them, which the appellant possessed.

Criminal appeals arising from convictions for conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances where a substantial part of the Crown's case rested on intercepted private communications.

The central issue was whether the trial judge over-edited affidavits supporting wiretap authorizations, thereby preventing an effective Wilson review and depriving the appellants of their Charter right to make full answer and defence.

The majority held that full disclosure is the governing premise, subject only to narrow public-interest exceptions, and that the deletions improperly withheld material that could have been used to challenge the validity of the authorizations.

The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial.