Help

Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. C. (D.A.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 8

 

D.A.C.                                                                                                 Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. C. (D.A.)

 

File No.:  25230.

 

1997:  January 24.

 

Present:  Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

 

                   Criminal law ‑‑ Indictment ‑‑ Severance of counts ‑‑ Appellate court should interfere with exercise of trial judge’s discretion respecting severance of counts in indictment only if trial judge acted unjudicially or if ruling resulted in injustice ‑‑ Court of Appeal correct in holding that neither circumstance present here.

 

Cases Cited

 

                   Referred to:  R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1996), 72 B.C.A.C. 227, 119 W.A.C. 227, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 28, dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction of several sexual offences.  Appeal dismissed.

 

                   T. E. La Liberté, Q.C., and Kate Ker, for the appellant.

 

                   Bruce Johnstone, for the respondent.

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

1                        Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right.  In R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333, this Court held that an appellate court would only interfere with the exercise of a trial judge’s discretion with respect to severance of counts in an indictment if the trial judge acted unjudicially or the ruling resulted in an injustice.  We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that neither of these circumstances was present here.

 

2                        The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellant:  Lauk La Liberté, Vancouver.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Ministry of Attorney General, Vancouver.

 

Lexum

For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.


>

 

 

Lexbox allows you to keep track of Supreme Court decisions. Store and share your research + create personalized alerts.

Get started with Lexbox


>

Twitter Notices

Get real-time notices of new Supreme Court decisions via Twitter.

Follow Lexum on Twitter