Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation:  R. v. Blacklaws, 2013 SCC 8, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 403

 

Date: 20130215

Docket: 34889

 

Between:

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

and

Fredrick Owen Blacklaws

Respondent

 

 

 

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Moldaver JJ.

 

Reasons for Judgment:

(para. 1)

 

McLachlin C.J. (Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Moldaver JJ. concurring)

 

 


 

R. v. Blacklaws, 2013 SCC 8, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 403

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                 Appellant

v.

Fredrick Owen Blacklaws                                                                          Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Blacklaws

 

 

 

2013 SCC 8

 

 

 

File No.:  34889.

 

 

 

2013:  February 15.

 

 

 

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Moldaver JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

 

                    Criminal law — Procedure — Application to sever counts — Charges arising from two separate incidents involving different complainants — Crown charging the counts relating to both incidents on same indictment — Trial judge dismissing application to sever counts — Majority of Court of Appeal ordering new trial on basis that denial of severance resulted in injustice — Trial judge did not act unjudicially in denying severance application — Denial of severance application not resulting in injustice.

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Finch, Newbury and Levine JJ.A.), 2012 BCCA 217, 260 C.R.R. (2d) 351, 93 C.R. (6th) 83, 285 C.C.C. (3d) 132, 322 B.C.A.C. 107, 549 W.A.C. 107, [2012] B.C.J. No. 980, 2012 CarswellBC 1457, setting aside the accused’s convictions for forcible confinement, overcoming resistance to commission of an offence, sexual assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm, and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed.

 

                    Susan J. Brown, for the appellant.

                    Brent R. Anderson and Lawrence D. Myers, Q.C., for the respondent.

                    The following is the judgment delivered orally by

[1]                              The Chief Justice — We are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed, for the reasons of Chief Justice Finch.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitor for the appellant:  Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.

 

                    Solicitors for the respondent:  Myers, McMurdo & Karp, 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.