Ms. Sayed

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the accused applied for a mistrial alleging deficient interpretation of testimony delivered in Jamaican Patois.

Evidence on a voir dire established that the interpreter omitted words, added words, paraphrased instead of translating verbatim, and at times altered the meaning of testimony central to the accused’s defence of duress.

The court found that the interpretation failed to meet the constitutional standard under s. 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which requires continuous, precise, impartial, competent and contemporaneous interpretation.

Given the advanced stage of the trial and the risk that curative measures would create further prejudice or confusion for the jury, the court held that no remedy short of a mistrial would adequately protect the accused’s right to a fair trial.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the accused applied for directed verdicts of acquittal at the close of the Crown’s case.

They argued that alleged police errors and mishandling of drug exhibits undermined continuity to such an extent that the Crown’s evidence could not support a conviction.

Applying the test from United States of America v. Shepard, the court considered whether there was any admissible evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict.

The court held that continuity issues went to weight rather than the existence of evidence on the essential elements of the offence.

Because there was admissible evidence capable of supporting findings on each element, the application for directed verdicts was dismissed.