J. Shanmuganathan

The accused, a Black man charged with first-degree murder, sought to challenge prospective jurors for cause regarding racial bias.

The accused requested that the challenge be decided by rotating triers and that the unsworn jury panel be excluded from the courtroom during the process.

The accused explicitly declined to apply under s. 640(2.1) of the Criminal Code, relying instead on the court's inherent common law jurisdiction.

The court reviewed the 2008 amendments to the Criminal Code and conflicting jurisprudence on whether trial judges retain inherent jurisdiction to exclude unsworn jurors when rotating triers are used.

The court concluded that applications to exclude jurors to preserve impartiality fall under s. 640(2.1), which mandates static triers if granted.

However, the court declined to make an order under s. 640(2.1) and further declined to exercise any residual common law discretion to exclude the panel, finding the grounds advanced did not warrant exclusion.

The challenge for cause was ordered to proceed with rotating triers and without excluding unsworn jurors.

The accused was charged with break and enter, child abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference arising from the nighttime abduction of a child from a residence.

On a voir dire, the defence challenged the admissibility of DNA samples and two police statements, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The court found the accused was not psychologically detained during the initial police interview and that his statement and consent DNA sample were voluntary and informed.

The court also held there were no Charter breaches in relation to counsel rights or the right to silence during the later custodial interview.

Both the statements and DNA evidence were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering, abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference after a five-year-old child was taken from her grandparents' home in the middle of the night and assaulted in a nearby backyard.

The case was entirely circumstantial, relying heavily on DNA evidence found on the child's pyjama top and the flight path of the suspect.

The defence argued that the child's father or a neighbour committed the offences, pointing to the child's out-of-court statements implicating her father.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles, rejected the alternative suspect theories, and found that the DNA and circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.