R. v. Goddard, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 854
David Goddard Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Goddard
File No.: 24200.
1995: March 20.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Criminal law ‑‑ Obstruction of justice ‑‑ Appellant not making false statement to court or withholding information he was obliged to disclose ‑‑ Acquittal on charge of obstruction of justice restored.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal, [1994] A.J. No. 440 (QL), reversing Roslak J.'s dismissal of the charge of obstruction of justice against the accused. Appeal allowed and acquittal restored, L'Heureux‑Dubé and Gonthier JJ. dissenting.
Alexander D. Pringle, Q.C., and Shawn Beaver, for the appellant.
Jack Watson, Q.C., for the respondent.
//Sopinka J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Sopinka J. ‑‑ In view of the finding of the trial judge that there existed a reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant undertook to advise the police officers when they would be needed as witnesses, we cannot agree with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in law in dismissing the charge. We agree with the trial judge that what took place in the courtroom did not amount to obstruction. In the circumstances of this case, no false statement was made by the appellant to the court. Nor did he withhold information that he was obliged by law to disclose. In our view, therefore, the trial judge was entitled to conclude that in all the circumstances it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had made a false representation either actively or by omitting to disclose a fact which the appellant had a duty to disclose. He did not err in law in so concluding.
2 We wish to add a comment on the appellant's conduct. If this were the conduct of a lawyer, it would be the subject of disciplinary proceedings. We agree with the comments of the trial judge therefore that the conduct while not criminal was ethically inexcusable.
3 The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the acquittal is restored. L'Heureux‑Dubé and Gonthier JJ., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal for the reasons of the Court of Appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: Alexander D. Pringle, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent: Jack Watson, Edmonton.