R. v. Barrett, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 752
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
David Gordon Barrett Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Barrett
File No.: 23749.
1995: February 22.
Present: Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Trial ‑‑ No reasons given by trial judge for ruling on voir dire that accused's incriminating statements admissible ‑‑ Accused convicted on several counts of robbery ‑‑ Absence of reasons not ground for appeal when finding supportable on evidence or where basis of finding apparent from circumstances.
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. Burns, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 587, 64 O.A.C. 99, 82 C.C.C. (3d) 266, 23 C.R. (4th) 49, allowing the accused's appeal from his conviction on ten counts of robbery. Appeal allowed.
Renee M. Pomerance, for the appellant.
David Humphrey and Todd Ducharme, for the respondent.
//Iacobucci J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Iacobucci J. ‑‑ We all agree that this appeal is governed by the principles recently discussed by our Court in R. v. Burns, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656, and related cases. The decision in Burns was not available to the Ontario Court of Appeal when it rendered its judgment. While it is clearly preferable to give reasons and although there may be some cases where reasons may be necessary, by itself, the absence of reasons of a trial judge cannot be a ground for appellate review when the finding is otherwise supportable on the evidence or where the basis of the finding is apparent from the circumstances. The issue is the reasonableness of the finding not an absence or insufficiency of reasons. In this case, the basis for the ruling of the trial judge on the voir dire is clear. The only issue was credibility. The trial judge's ruling demonstrated that he did not accept the evidence of the accused. In these circumstances, the failure of the trial judge to state the basis of his decision on the voir dire did not occasion an error of law or miscarriage of justice. We also find no error in law in the charge to the jury.
2 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal is set aside, and the convictions entered at trial are restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent: Greenspan, Humphrey, Toronto.