R. v. Brown
Because the breakdown in mutual communication and confidence between the appellant and trial counsel resulted in an inadequate and unfair defence, the verdict was not a reliable assessment of culpability; therefore the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C41228
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Kevin Felix Brown
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered; bail granted on consent according to draft order.
- Legal Topics
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Fair Trial, New Trial, Client Lawyer Communication, Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Kevin Felix Brown
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel
- 2 Whether a breakdown in communication/confidence between counsel and client undermined the fairness of the trial
- 3 Whether the verdict is a reliable assessment of the appellant's culpability
Ratio Decidendi
Because the breakdown in mutual communication and confidence between the appellant and trial counsel resulted in an inadequate and unfair defence, the verdict was not a reliable assessment of culpability; therefore the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered; bail granted on consent according to draft order.
Orders
- Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
- Conviction set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Brown Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-04-12 Docket numbers C41228 Judges Gillese, Eileen E.; Blair, Robert Ashley; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060412 DOCKET: C41228 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – KEVIN FELIX BROWN (Appellant) BEFORE: GILLESE, BLAIR and LAFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Russell Silverstein for the appellant Rick Visca for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: April 7, 2006 On appeal from the conviction entered on March 19, 2003 and the sentence imposed on April 30, 2003 by Justice Sandra Chapnik of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] By order dated April 5, 2006, Borins J.A. deemed the appellant to have surrendered by appearing in person at the hearing of the appeal. [2] The appellant did not so appear. However, the Crown has conceded that the appeal must be allowed. And, the appellant has faithfully appeared as ordered on all previous occasions. Accordingly, the order of Borins J.A. shall be varied to read that “In lieu of surrender, the appellant shall appear as ordered by this court or the Superior Court of Justice.” [3] Kevin Brown was convicted, by a jury, of trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of the proceeds of crime. He appeals the conviction on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. [4] The Crown acknowledges that the absence of mutual communication and confidence between the appellant and his trial counsel led to the presentation of a defense that was in adequate and unfair. In short, the Crown concedes that the fairness of the appellant’s defence was undermined by the conduct of trial counsel and that the appeal must be allowed. [5] In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the verdict cannot be taken as a reliable assessment of the appellant’s culpability. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered. Bail according to the attached draft order, on consent.