R. v. Babinski

R. v. Babinski

Majority held the accused's statement was properly excluded under s.24(2) for breach of the right to counsel, but exclusion did not mandate an acquittal; the Court affirmed the ordering of a new trial on other grounds stated by the Court of Appeal while upholding the trial judge's exclusion of the statement.

Citation
[1992] 3 SCR 467
Parties
Appellant/accused: Richard Raymond Babinski; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (charter Issues) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; new trial ordered; trial judge's exclusion of the accused's statement upheld by the majority.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2)), Admissibility of Statements, Bringing Administration of Justice Into Disrepute, New Trial
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter Litigation Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2)) Admissibility of Statements Bringing Administration of Justice Into Disrepute New Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Raymond Babinski

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (charter Issues) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's statement violated the Charter right to counsel
  2. 2 Whether the statement should be excluded under s.24(2) as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of the statement requires acquittal or whether a new trial should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the accused's statement was properly excluded under s.24(2) for breach of the right to counsel, but exclusion did not mandate an acquittal; the Court affirmed the ordering of a new trial on other grounds stated by the Court of Appeal while upholding the trial judge's exclusion of the statement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; new trial ordered; trial judge's exclusion of the accused's statement upheld by the majority.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • New trial ordered.