Hyperlawhypertext legal database R. v. Finta [1994] 1 SCR 701

← Cases

R. v. Finta

[1994] 1 SCR 701 Court SCC Decision date 1994-03-24 Docket 23023, 23097 English

PartiesHer Majesty The Queen Appellant·Imre Finta Respondent·Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association Interveners·League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada Interveners·Canadian Jewish Congress and InterAmicus Interveners

Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Major, John C.

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from Ontario

Subjects Constitutional law Criminal law

Contents

The following are the reasons delivered by

The reasons of La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ. were delivered by

The judgment of Gonthier, Cory and Major JJ. was delivered by

(a)the trial judge did not err in putting the "peace officer defence" embodied in s. 25 of the Criminal Code , the "military orders defence" and the issue of mistake of fact to the jury; and
(b)the trial judge did not misdirect the jury in the manner in which he defined those defences;
the trial judge's instructions to the jury adequately corrected defence counsel's inflammatory and improper jury address so as to overcome the prejudice to the Crown and not deprive it of a fair trial;
the DALLOS "evidence" (police statement and deposition) was admissible and, in particular, in finding that even though it did not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule:
(i)it was admissible on the basis that it had circumstantial indicia of reliability;
(ii)there was a necessity to introduce it;
(iii)its admission was necessary to ensure a fair trial and to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and
(iv)it was admissible for the defence even though it would not be admissible for the Crown.
the trial judge's error in calling the DALLOS evidence and the videotaped commission evidence of the witnesses KEMENY and BALLO as his own evidence, thereby denying the Crown of its statutory right to address the jury last, did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice; and
the trial judge's instructions to the jury relating to the Crown's identification evidence were appropriate and in not finding that he misdirected the jury on the issue of identification ...

The Cross Appeal

Does s. 7(3.74) [and s. 7(3.76)] of the Criminal Code violate ss. 7 , 11(a) , 11(b) , 11(d) , 11(g) , 12 or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?
If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, [are] ss. 7(3.74) [and 7(3.76)] of the Criminal Code ... reasonable limit[s] in a free and democratic society [justifiable] under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Footnotes

  1. [1] * See Erratum, [1994] 2 S.C.R. iv
  2. [2] ** See Erratum, [1994] 2 S.C.R. iv

Statutes and regulations cited