R. v. Khan

R. v. Khan

The trial judge did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial because the jury's exposure to the unedited transcripts was at most an innuendo, the judge promptly remedied the situation by retrieving transcripts, supplying clean copies and issuing strong cautions, and she was in a privileged position to assess impact; therefore no miscarriage of justice was shown and the conviction is upheld without invoking the proviso.

Citation
2001 SCC 86
Parties
Appellant/accused: Mohamed Ameerulla Khan; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal First Degree Murder / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal From Manitoba Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for first degree murder upheld
Legal Topics
Mistrial, Curative Proviso, Section 686(1), Procedural Irregularity, Miscarriage of Justice, Voir Dire, Jury Transcripts, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Appellate Review Jury Procedure Mistrial Curative Proviso Section 686(1) Procedural Irregularity +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Ameerulla Khan

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal First Degree Murder / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal From Manitoba Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after the jury was given unedited transcripts containing voir dire material
  2. 2 How to characterize the error under s.686(1) of the Criminal Code (error of law v. miscarriage of justice)
  3. 3 Whether the curative proviso in s.686(1)(b)(iii) or s.686(1)(b)(iv) applies to cure the error

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial because the jury's exposure to the unedited transcripts was at most an innuendo, the judge promptly remedied the situation by retrieving transcripts, supplying clean copies and issuing strong cautions, and she was in a privileged position to assess impact; therefore no miscarriage of justice was shown and the conviction is upheld without invoking the proviso.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for first degree murder upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for first degree murder confirmed