Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada

 
Citation:R. v. HinseĀ , [1997] 1 S.C.R. 3
Date:January 21, 1997
Docket: 24320
Other formats: PDF WPD
Printer Friendly

R. v. Hinse, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 3

 

Réjean Hinse                                                                                    Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                  Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Hinse 

 

File No.:  24320.

 

1997: January 21.

 

Present:  Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and  Iacobucci JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

 

                  Criminal law ‑‑ Powers of court of appeal ‑‑ Acquittal ‑‑ Evidence not allowing reasonable jury properly instructed to find accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

                  APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (1994), 64 Q.A.C. 53, setting aside the accused’s conviction for armed robbery and ordering a stay of proceedings.  Appeal allowed.

 

                  Josée Ferrari, Jean‑François Longtin and Eve‑Stéphanie Sauvé, for the appellant.

 

                  Pierre Sauvé, for the respondent.

 

                  English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

 

1                 Gonthier J. ‑‑ The appellant is appealing a stay of proceedings order rendered by the Court of Appeal proprio motu without an application having been made to it, in particular by the appellant, the appellant being thus deprived of the possibility of obtaining an acquittal, if not from the Court of Appeal, at least by a jury of his peers.

 

2                 In the circumstances, being of the view that the evidence could not allow a reasonable jury properly instructed to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we are all of the view that the appropriate remedy is an acquittal.

 

3                 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the stay of proceedings order is set aside and  the acquittal of the appellant is entered.

 

                  Judgment accordingly.

 

                  Solicitors for the appellant:  Langlois Robert, Montréal.

 

                  Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of Quebec, Montréal.