Supreme Court Judgments

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Between:

Vuthy Kong

Appellant

and

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Coram: Bastarache, Binnie, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

______________________________

R. v. Kong, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 347, 2006 SCC 40

Vuthy Kong                                                                                                       Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                               Respondent

Indexed as:  R. v. Kong

Neutral citation:  2006 SCC 40.

File No.:  31238.

2006:  June 22; 2006:  September 8.

Present:  Bastarache, Binnie, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

Criminal law — Defences — Self‑defence — Victim stabbed during altercation between two groups — Accused testified that he feared for his safety and waved knife in self‑defence — Trial judge found defence did not have air of reality and refused to charge jury with defence of self‑defence under s. 34(1)  of Criminal Code  — Accused convicted of manslaughter — Court of Appeal erred in upholding trial judge’s decision to not put defence of self-defence before jury — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 34(1) .

Held:  The appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered on the charge of manslaughter.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 , s. 34(1) .

APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal  (Fraser C.J.A. and Russell and Wittmann JJ.A.) (2005), 53 Alta. L.R. (4th) 25, 371 A.R. 90, 354 W.A.C. 90, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 19, [2006] 5 W.W.R. 405, [2005] A.J. No. 981 (QL), 2005 ABCA 255, upholding the accused’s conviction for manslaughter.  Appeal allowed.

Balfour Q.H. Der, Q.C., and Lisa M. Burgis, for the appellant.

Eric J. Tolppanen, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

1                                   BASTARACHE J. — This appeal comes to us as of right on the question of whether the defence of self-defence under s. 34(1)  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , ought to have been put to the jury for its consideration. We agree with the conclusion reached by Wittmann J.A. in his dissenting opinion on this point ((2005), 53 Alta. L.R. (4th) 25, 2005 ABCA 255). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered on the charge of manslaughter.

Appeal allowed.

Solicitors for the appellant:  Batting, Der, Calgary.

Solicitor for the respondent:  Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.