Robson Crim Legal Blog

In R v Hart, Cromwell JA stated that the cross-examination process is a “cornerstone of the adversarial trial process… [and that] it is an important vehicle for the discovery of truth.”[1] As such, if an accused person chooses to testify,[2] their testimony can be subjected to a cross-examination by Crown counsel.[3] The cross-examination process is ultimately “a fundamental feature of a fair trial.”[4] It is intended to produce evidence in relation to the credibility of an i

Defence counsel may prepare what is known as a Corbett application which prohibits the extent or use of the accused’s “record of conviction in cross-examination” to limit attacks against their credibility. While in the past some safeguards have been developed and used to prevent the misuse of a criminal record as evidence of guilt against the accused during cross-examination, the recent 2022 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in R v King adds an additional layer o

On June 9, 2021, the Manitoba Court of Appeal heard the appeal of Marlon Elijah Whincup. The issue before the court was one of mathematics. Whincup had been serving an imprisonment of 30 months for an incident in which he stole an ambulance in a methamphetamine-induced psychosis. The sentencing judge made an error resulting in a 30 month sentence instead of the intended 24. The Court confirmed that the sentencing judge had correctly considered Gladue factors.

In this blog entry, I will describe the recent case of R v CEB. I will also discuss why I believe that Gladue factors were correctly balanced against the harsher sentencing standards typically applied to cases dealing with child sexual abuse.