R. v. Rarru, 1996 CanLII 195 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 165
Hardip Singh Rarru Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Rarru
1996: May 22.
Present: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law ‑‑ Trial ‑‑ Charge to jury -- Sexual offences -- Accused charged with twelve counts involving six complainants -- Trial judge’s instructions inadequate ‑‑ Convictions set aside and new trial ordered.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1995), 62 B.C.A.C. 81, 103 W.A.C. 81, dismissing the accused’s appeal from his convictions for sexual assault and related offences. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
S. R. Chamberlain, Q.C., for the appellant.
John M. Gordon, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
[1]
Judgment
Sopinka J. ‑‑ We agree with the reasons of Rowles J.A., dissenting in the Court of Appeal, that the charge to the jury was erroneous. In the circumstances of this case it was incumbent on the trial judge not only to instruct the jury that evidence on one count was not to be used on other counts but further to warn about the dangers of the potential influence of evidence of numerous alleged criminal acts which were not the subject of a particular count. The charge was inadequate in this respect. These omissions were exacerbated by the invitation to the jury to consider the address of counsel for the Crown. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the additional ground on which leave to appeal was granted.
[2]
Disposition
The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the convictions are set aside and a new trial is ordered.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: S. R. Chamberlain, Richmond.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver.
