Two appellants were convicted of manslaughter following a group assault in which the victim was fatally stabbed by another member of the attacking group.
Both appellants appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on causation in the context of co-principal liability.
The majority held that, reading the jury instructions as a whole, the jury was properly — though not perfectly — instructed on legal causation and the intervening act doctrine.
The majority further clarified that an act by a co-participant in a group assault can, in principle, trigger the intervening act doctrine, rejecting the Crown's contrary submission.
The dissent would have allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial, finding the repeated instruction that foreseeability of continuing assaults 'may be enough' to establish causation was erroneous and not cured by the remainder of the charge.
