Robson Crim Legal Blog

What is a trial judge supposed to do when it is the word of one person against the word of another in a criminal trial and there isn’t any additional evidence to decide the case on? This is exactly what Judge Toews of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (“the MBQB”) was asked to do at trial in R v Ramos (“Ramos”). The MBQB in Ramos was tasked with assessing the credibility of the testimonies using the analysis from R v W(D) (“W(D)”) in order to make a verdict.

Almost a decade ago I wrote an article on tattoos and police dress regulations that appeared in the Manitoba Law Journal. At the time I had surmised the new Manitoba Police Services Act, which had come into force on June 2, 2012, would establish regulations for the effective management of all police services in Manitoba that were consistent with community needs, values and expectations.

Friesen was an appeal of the Crown that came from the Manitoba Court of Appeal (“MBCA”) in which the MBCA had reduced the sentence imposed at trial from six years to four-and-one-half years. The offence in question in Friesen was sexual interference and extortion. Friesen had met the mother of the four-year-old victim on a dating site.

The case of R v Ducharme (“Ducharme”) is a recent decision by the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (“the MBQB”) concerning the murder of an inmate at Stony Mountain Institution, the federal prison in Manitoba. On April 22, 2019, a prisoner of the federal institution was fatally stabbed fifty-two times and left to die in his cell. Two inmates, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Edwards, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder.

Before getting into the facts of R v Chung (“Chung”), it is important to give a brief overview of the critical elements involved in the case, as well as a brief overview of R v Roy, the leading case on dangerous driving prior to R v Chung.