R. v. Melnychuk

R. v. Melnychuk

The Court concluded the defence evidence was not a classical alibi that justified an adverse inference for lack of notice; even if it were characterized as alibi, given the Crown's awareness of the witness and the absence of any investigative effort, the trial judge erred in drawing an adverse inference which tainted credibility assessment; the error was not harmless and therefore the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1695
Parties
Crown: Regina; Appellant/accused: Robert Allan Melnychuk
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of British Columbia From Provincial Court Conviction; Judgment on November 25 and December 9, 2009
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Alibi, Adverse Inference, Burden of Proof, Standard of Review, Curative Proviso S.686
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Assault Causing Bodily Harm Alibi Adverse Inference Burden of Proof Standard of Review Curative Proviso S.686

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Robert Allan Melnychuk

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of British Columbia From Provincial Court Conviction; Judgment on November 25 and December 9, 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof or imposed a stricter standard on the accused
  3. 3 Whether the defence evidence constituted alibi requiring notice and whether an adverse inference was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded the defence evidence was not a classical alibi that justified an adverse inference for lack of notice; even if it were characterized as alibi, given the Crown's awareness of the witness and the absence of any investigative effort, the trial judge erred in drawing an adverse inference which tainted credibility assessment; the error was not harmless and therefore the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • New trial ordered