Robson Crim Legal Blog

The dilemma of inconsistent verdicts is aggravated by resort to inflexible rules. Most courts apply a single rule to all types of inconsistent verdicts. Inconsistent verdicts generally occur when an accused can be said to have been found guilty and not guilty by the jury of the same conduct and based on the same evidence. Where there are inconsistencies between verdicts and the matter is appealed, an appellate court must determine if an inconsistency can be explained, resolve

R. v. Esseghaier (“Essegbaier”) was the first case of the Supreme Court of Canada (“the Court”) to address whether section 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code, a curative proviso that allows appellant courts to cure procedural errors during a trial and uphold convictions, can be used when the errors occur during the jury selection process.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) states that everyone in Canada should be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with a constitutional privacy right against unreasonable intrusion from the government. Hunter v Southam Inc (“Hunter”) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (“the Court”) with respect to section 8 of the Charter.

John Burchill's latest work takes a closer look at the use and efficacy of polygraph's in the below paper - the latest feature from our From the Practitioner's Desk Series.

This blawg is a part of a two-part series examining homicide cases in Winnipeg and how second-degree murder could potentially be reduced to manslaughter. The case I will be discussing in this blawg is R v Belyk (“Belyk”), a decision by the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (“MBQB”) in which it was argued that the accused did not have the requisite intent for his act of homicide to be considered second-degree murder.