Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

  

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. Robinson, 2017 SCC 52, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 382

Appeal heard: October 30, 2017

Judgment rendered: October 30, 2017

Docket: 37411

 

Between:

Benjamin Robinson

Appellant

 

and

 

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

 

 

 

Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.

 

Reasons for Judgment:

(para. 1)

Abella J. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

 

 

 


R. v. Robinson, 2017 SCC 52, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 382

 

 

 

Benjamin Robinson                                                                                         Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Robinson

 

 

 

2017 SCC 52

 

 

 

File No.:  37411.

 

 

 

2017:  October 30.

 

 

 

Present:  Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

 

                    Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict — Misapprehension of evidence — Accused convicted of perjury — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge’s findings not unreasonable and that trial judge did not misapprehend evidence — Conviction upheld.

 

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Newbury, Willcock and Goepel JJ.A.), 2017 BCCA 6, 344 C.C.C. (3d) 176, [2017] B.C.J. No. 33 (QL), 2017 CarswellBC 31 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction entered by Smith J., 2015 BCSC 433, 19 C.R. (7th) 165, [2015] B.C.J. No. 530 (QL), 2015 CarswellBC 714 (WL Can.).  Appeal dismissed, Côté J. dissenting.

 

                    Elizabeth France and Michael Sobkin, for the appellant.

 

                    Richard C. C. Peck, Q.C., Eric V. Gottardi and Tony C. Paisana, for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]                              Abella J. — A majority would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal. Justice Côté, dissenting, would order a new trial for substantially the reasons of Willcock J.A.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitors for the appellant:  Sugden, McFee & Roos, Vancouver; Michael Sobkin, Ottawa.

 

                    Solicitors for the respondent:  Peck and Company, Vancouver.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.