John Scurfield

The appellants challenged their first degree murder convictions on the basis of the insanity provisions in the Criminal Code and alleged that the reverse onus in s. 16(4) violated the presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Charter.

A majority held that s. 16(4) infringed s. 11(d) because it permits conviction despite a reasonable doubt as to sanity, but that the infringement was justified under s. 1.

The Court overruled prior authority holding that 'wrong' in s. 16(2) meant legally wrong, and held instead that the provision refers to morally wrong according to society's standards.

Because the jury had been instructed on the narrower legal-wrong meaning, a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with rape.

The only issue at trial was the identification of the accused by the complainant.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, finding the identification evidence unreliable due to difficult observation conditions and improper police identification procedures.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that a trial judge cannot withdraw a case from the jury where there is admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The frailties of the identification evidence should have been left to the jury with a proper caution.