R. v. Selhi, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 277

Brahm Datt Selhi Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Selhi

File No.: 19333.

1990: March 2.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Lamer, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal from saskatchewan

Criminal law ‑‑ Plea of autrefois acquit ‑‑ Crown withdrawing two informations after plea of not guilty but before any evidence adduced ‑‑ New information laid ‑‑ Whether plea of autrefois acquit available.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (1985), 1985 CanLII 2362 (SK CA), 38 Sask. R. 90, 18 C.C.C. (3d) 131, affirming a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench[^1], dismissing the accused's appeal by way of stated case from a judgment of the Provincial Court[^2], refusing the accused's plea of autrefois acquit. Appeal dismissed.

Eldon B. Lindgren, for the appellant.

Carol A. Snell, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

The Chief Justice ‑‑ This is a summary conviction proceeding. The case concerns the withdrawal of two informations by the Crown, subsequent to the accused pleading not guilty but before any evidence was adduced against him, and the immediate issuance of a new information in which both of the old charges were consolidated. The accused argues that the new information can be successfully met with a plea of autrefois acquit, and the sole aspect of this special plea which is in issue is whether the withdrawal of the informations can be characterized as in the nature of an acquittal.

We are all of the opinion that the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan did not err in holding that a plea of autrefois acquit was not available to the accused on the facts of this case. The withdrawal flowed from a purely technical consideration, and did not represent a decision on legal or factual grounds. Moreover, to expose the accused to a new information based upon the same events and offences mentioned in the original informations would expose him to no prejudice. Finally, the withdrawal occurred at the very beginning of the trial, before any evidence was adduced. The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Maher, Lindgren, Blais & Frank, North Battleford.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Department of Justice, Regina.

[^1]: Sask. Q.B. (Battleford), No. 563, November 23, 1984 (Hrabinsky J.)

[^2]: Sask. Prov. Ct., July 4, 1984 (Arnop Prov. Ct. J.)