Supreme Court of Canada
Between:
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
and
Amandeep Banwait Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2)
McLachlin C.J. (LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ. concurring)
R. v. Banwait, 2011 SCC 55, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 533
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Amandeep Banwait Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Banwait
2011 SCC 55
2011: November 8.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Criminal law — Trial — Charge to jury — First degree murder — Trial judge properly instructed jury on relationship between planning and deliberation and murder.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Laskin, MacPherson and Simmons JJ.A.), 2010 ONCA 869, 272 O.A.C. 130, 265 C.C.C. (3d) 201, 82 C.R. (6th) 87, [2010] O.J. No. 5472 (QL), 2010 CarswellOnt 9673, setting aside the accused’s conviction for first degree murder and substituting a conviction for second degree murder. Appeal allowed.
Gillian E. Roberts and Stacey D. Young, for the appellant.
Philip Campbell, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1The Chief Justice — We are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed for the reasons set out by MacPherson J.A. at paras. 178-89 of his dissenting judgment (2010 ONCA 869, 272 O.A.C. 130).
2The appeal is allowed and the conviction for first degree murder restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent: Lockyer Campbell Posner, Toronto.
