R. v. Peters, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 997, 2001 SCC 34
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Neil Peters Respondent
and between
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Roger Craig Denton Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Peters; R. v. Rendon
Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 34.
File Nos.: 27579, 27581.
2001: May 24.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Courts – Judges -- Judicial independence – Court of Appeal properly concluding that there was appearance of interference by Crown with judicial independence of trial judge -- Court of Appeal’s order for new trial upheld.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391.
Statutes Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 530.1.
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1999] R.J.Q. 2304, 140 C.C.C. (3d) 52, 33 C.R. (5th) 83, [1999] Q.J. No. 4143 (QL), allowing Peters’ appeal from his conviction on a charge of conspiracy to import cocaine and ordering a new trial. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1999] R.J.Q. 2281, 140 C.C.C. (3d) 12, 33 C.R. (5th) 311, [1999] Q.J. No. 4124 (QL), allowing Denton’s appeal from his conviction on a charge of conspiracy to import cocaine and ordering a new trial. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
Paul Crépeau, for the appellant in the Peters case.
Henri-Pierre Labrie, for the appellant in the Denton case.
Thomas P. Walsh, for the respondent Peters.
Katia Léontieff, for the respondent Denton.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Bastarache J. – The appeals and cross-appeals are dismissed.
2 We are all of the view that the Court of Appeal did not err in applying Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391, to the facts of this case and that the fresh evidence admitted by this Court serves to reinforce the conclusion that there was an appearance of an interference that put in issue judicial independence. This is sufficient to dispose of the appeal in Her Majesty the Queen v. Peters and the appeal in Her Majesty the Queen v. Denton.
3 On the question of whether the defence in Peters could examine the witness Prince in English, we are of the view that the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that it was not the linguistic rights of the witness, protected in particular by s. 530.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, that were in issue but in fact the opportunity for the defence to cast doubt on the reliability of the testimony in view of the witness’s limited linguistic capability. The trial judge had to find a means of verifying that linguistic capability that was appropriate in the circumstances. Given the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on the first ground, it is not necessary to elaborate on the methods that might have been used in this case.
4 As far as the cross-appeals on the stay of proceedings are concerned, no valid basis was put forward for distinguishing this matter from Tobiass, having regard to the advisability of ordering a new trial. The cross-appeals are therefore dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant in the Peters case: Paul Crépeau, Sherbrooke.
Solicitor for the appellant in the Denton case: Henri-Pierre Labrie, Longueuil, Quebec.
Solicitor for the respondent Peters: Thomas P. Walsh, Sherbrooke.
Solicitors for the respondent Denton: Desrosiers Turcotte Marchand Massicotte, Montréal.
