Hyperlawhypertext legal database Harper (Down) v. The Queen [1980] 2 SCR 366

← Cases

Harper (Down) v. The Queen

[1980] 2 SCR 366 Court SCC Decision date 1980-12-08 English

PartiesKatie Harper also known as Katie Down Appellant·Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Counsel (4)
H.E. Wolch and H. Leonoff, for the appellant.
J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., and S.J. Whitley, for the respondent.
Solicitors for the appellant: Wolch, Pinx, Scur-field, Martin & Wyant, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Judges Laskin, Bora; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from Manitoba

Subjects Criminal law

Contents

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that, in the circumstances of this case, there should be a new trial for failure to hold a voir dire on a statement allegedly made by the accused to a police officer which, admittedly, related to a crucial point in the trial and could well have made the difference between first and second degree murder. We reaffirm the judgment of this Court in Erven v. The Queen[2]. This is not a case for applying s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
It becomes unnecessary, therefore, to deal with the second point raised by the appellant respecting the introduction of new evidence.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal is set aside,
[Page 367]
and the conviction is quashed and a new trial is directed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Wolch, Pinx, Scur-field, Martin & Wyant, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Footnotes

  1. [1] (1980), 2 Man. R. (2d) 153.
  2. [2] [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926.

Statutes and regulations cited