The Queen v. Wray

The Queen v. Wray

Majority held trial judge erred as there is no general judicial authority to exclude relevant admissible evidence on the basis that its admission would be unjust or bring the administration of justice into disrepute; admissibility is governed by relevance and limited judicial discretion to exclude arises only where...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1971] SCR 272
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent (defendant): John Wray
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1970
Procedural Posture
Criminal Non Capital Murder / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Trial Judge Directed Verdict of Not Guilty
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial directed.
Legal Topics
Confession Admissibility, Voluntariness, Discovery Rule (st. Lawrence), Judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence, Prejudicial Vs Probative Value, New Trial
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Confession Admissibility Voluntariness Discovery Rule (st. Lawrence) Judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence Prejudicial Vs Probative Value New Trial

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant (plaintiff)

John Wray

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Non Capital Murder / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Trial Judge Directed Verdict of Not Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge has a discretion to exclude legally admissible evidence on the ground that its admission would be unjust or unfair to the accused or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute
  2. 2 Whether facts discovered as a result of an inadmissible confession are admissible
  3. 3 Whether parts of an inadmissible confession confirmed by subsequent discovery are admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held trial judge erred as there is no general judicial authority to exclude relevant admissible evidence on the basis that its admission would be unjust or bring the administration of justice into disrepute; admissibility is governed by relevance and limited judicial discretion to exclude arises only where evidence is of trivial probative value but gravely prejudicial; under R. v. St. Lawrence facts discovered confirming a confession and those parts of a confession confirmed are admissible. Appeal allowed and new trial directed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial directed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial directed