Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. Babinski, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 467

 

Richard Raymond Babinski                                                              Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

 

Indexed as: R. v. Babinski

 

File No.:  22622.

 

1992:  November 4.

 

Present:  Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

 

                   Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Admissibility of evidence ‑‑ Bringing administration of justice into disrepute ‑‑ Violation of right to counsel

‑‑ Accused's statement properly excluded.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 50 O.A.C. 341, 67 C.C.C. (3d) 187, 8 C.R.R. (2d) 378, allowing the Crown's appeal from the accused's acquittal on a charge of first degree murder* and ordering a new trial.  Appeal dismissed.

 

                   Jack Gemmell, for the appellant.

 

                   Jay L. Naster, for the respondent.

 

//Lamer C.J.//

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

                   Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are ready to hand down judgment now.  We agree with the Court of Appeal that a new trial should be held on the grounds stated by them, save for that relating to the admissibility of the statement, Justice L'Heureux‑Dubé dissenting on this point only.  We agree with the trial judge's decision to exclude it.  L'Heureux‑Dubé J. agrees with the Court of Appeal that the statement was improperly excluded.

 

                   The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitor for the appellant:  Jack Gemmell, Toronto.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.

 



     * See Erratum [1993] 1 S.C.R. iv

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.