Shayne G. Kert

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing that the common law rule of jury secrecy and section 649 of the Criminal Code infringed their Charter rights by preventing them from adducing evidence of jury deliberations to impeach their verdicts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the common law rule of jury secrecy, which prohibits the admission of evidence concerning the intrinsic deliberation process but allows evidence of extrinsic influences, is consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

The Court also found that section 649 of the Criminal Code is constitutional and that the trial judge in the appellant Pan's case did not err in declaring a mistrial.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges, arguing that his mobility rights under section 6(1) of the Charter were violated and seeking further disclosure of the Canadian investigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 9(3) of the Extradition Act does not confer expanded Charter jurisdiction on the extradition judge to consider mobility rights, which are only engaged at the ministerial surrender stage.

The Court found that the appellant received adequate disclosure and that the Minister of Justice reasonably exercised his discretion in ordering the surrender, properly considering the appellant's constitutional rights.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, faced extradition to the United States on charges of telemarketing fraud.

At his committal hearing, he unsuccessfully sought to exclude affidavit evidence from co-conspirators who were awaiting sentence.

On appeal, he sought to adduce fresh evidence consisting of public threats made by the American prosecutor that fugitives resisting extradition would face harsher prison conditions, including sexual violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence and the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal should have admitted the fresh evidence.

The Court found that the prosecutor's threats constituted a shocking abuse of process that tainted the judicial phase of the extradition proceedings, and entered a stay of proceedings.