The appellant was convicted of capital murder. The only issue raised by the defence at trial was that the jury should make a recommendation in favour of clemency. Defence counsel's whole address to the jury was devoted to this issue. The trial judge made no reference to it in his address to the jury before they retired to consider the verdict, but after the verdict of guilty had been rendered, he addressed the jury on s. 642A of the Code and read them a summary of the evidence of one psychiatrist. The jury returned an eleven to one recommendation against clemency. The appeal against sentence and conviction was dismissed by a unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal. An appeal was launched to this Court.
Before this Court and the Court of Appeal, the appellant argued that there had been a miscarriage of justice in that:
(1) The trial judge failed to explain adequately to the jury the considerations that they could apply in arriving at a decision on the question of clemency;
(2) The trial judge erred in failing to define and explain what clemency is, and the extent of the right that the jury had to recommend it;
(3) The trial judge erred by directing the jury on the evidence given by only one of the witnesses on that issue.
In this Court, the Crown raised the question of jurisdiction on the ground that the appeal referred not to the conviction but to the question of sentence.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia,' affirming a conviction for capital murder. Appeal dismissed.
Samuel Martin Toy, for the appellant.
W. G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for the respondent. Taschereau C.J. and Fauteux, Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Spence JJ.
1 W.W.R.
R.C.S.
[19661 At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellant, the following judgment was delivered:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally for the Court):-We are all U of opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal. In a capital case the trial must be conducted without regard to s. 642A of the Criminal Code. After a verdict of guilty is given, all that the judge is required to do, and all that he should do, is to put to the jury the question in the terms of that section. In the light of this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the issue of jurisdiction raised by counsel for the respondent.
The appeal is dismissed.
Droit crimine-Meurtre qualifid-Adresse du juge au jury concernant la climence-Code criminel, 1953-54 (Can.), arts. 206, 597A, 642A. L'appelant a 6t6 trouv6 coupable de meurtre qualifi6. Lors du procs, Is d6fense n'a soulev6 qu'un seul point, i savoir que le jury devait faire une recommandation A Ia climence. Toute l'adresse du procureur de 'appelant au jury fut consacr6e A cette question. Le juge au procis n'a pas r6f6r6 b cette question dans son adresse au jury avant qu'il se retire pour consid6rer le verdict, mais apris la d6claration de culpabilit6, le juge, dans une nouvelle adresse au jury, a trait6 de 'art. 642A du Code et a lu un sommaire du t6moignage d'un psychiatre. Onze des jur6s ont d&clar6 qu'ils s'opposaient i une recommandation A, Is cl6mence. Un appel contre la sentence et contre la d6claration de culpabilit6 a t6 rejet6 par un jugement unanime de la Cour d'Appel. D'oii le pourvoi devant cette Cour.
Devant cette Cour et la Cour d'Appel, I'appelant a soumis qu'il y avait eu erreur judiciaire lorsque:
1) Le juge au procks n'a pas expliqu6 ad6quatement au jury les questions qu'il pouvait consid6rer pour en arriver a une d6cision sur Ia question de cl6mence;
2) Le juge au procis a err6 en ne d6finissant pas et en n'expliquant pas ce qu'Stait la cl6mence, ainsi que 1'6tendue du droit que le jury avait de la recommander;
3) Le juge au procks a err6 en rif6rant le jury au t6moignage donn6 par un seul des t6moins sur cette question.
Devant cette Cour, la Couronne a soulev6 la question de juridiction en se basant sur le fait que l'appel portait non pas sur la d6claration de culpabilit6 mais sur la question de sentence.
S.C.R.
APPEL d'un jugement de la Cour d'Appel de la Colombie-Britannique,' confirmant une declaration de culpabilit6 pour meurtre qualifi6. Appel rejet6.
Samuel Martin Toy, pour 1'appelant.
W. G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., pour l'intim6.
Lorsque le procureur de l'appelant eut termind sa plaidoirie, la Cour a rendu le jugement suivant:
THE (orally for the Court):-We are all of opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal. In a capital case the trial must be conducted without regard to s. 642A of the Criminal Code. After a verdict of guilty is given, all that the judge is required to do, and all that he should do, is to put to the jury the question in the terms of that section. In the light of this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the issue of jurisdiction raised by counsel for the respondent.
The appeal is dismissed.