John E. Hall

The appellant, a youth with subnormal mental capacity, was arrested on a narcotics charge but was suspected of murder.

The police informed him of his right to counsel, which he indicated he did not understand, but they made no effort to explain it.

During interrogation, the focus shifted to the murders, but the police did not reiterate his right to counsel.

The police falsely told him his fingerprints were found at the murder scene, leading to a confession.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the police violated the appellant's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter by failing to explain his rights when he did not understand them, and by failing to reiterate his rights when the investigation changed to a more serious offence.

The confessions were excluded under s. 24(2) as their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and an acquittal was entered.

Criminal appeal addressing whether cross-examination of an accused on prior convictions under s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act infringes the right to a fair hearing under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The majority held the provision is constitutionally valid because prior convictions are admissible on credibility, do not reverse the burden of proof, and can be controlled by limiting instructions, while also recognizing a judicial discretion to exclude such evidence in unusual cases where fairness would be undermined.

On the facts, the majority found no unfairness in admitting the accused's prior non-capital murder conviction given the centrality of credibility and the defence attack on the criminal records of Crown witnesses.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, with a dissent concluding the prior murder conviction should have been excluded and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the deaths of his two adopted sons, who were found dead on a burning mattress in his town house.

The evidence against the appellant was entirely circumstantial, establishing that the boys were dead before the fire started and that the appellant had exclusive opportunity to commit the crime.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable under s. 613(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal correctly applied the test of whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered.

The Court also found that the Crown's failure to call the appellant's wife as a witness did not render the verdict unreasonable, as there was no evidence she possessed any knowledge of the events.