The King v. Quon

The King v. Quon

Majority held that to avoid absurdities, inconsistencies and repugnancies with other Code provisions the phrase 'any criminal offence' in s.122 must be restricted so it does not include offences whose essential element is possession of a firearm capable of being concealed on the person; therefore s.122 does not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1948] SCR 508
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: His Majesty The King; Respondent/defendant: Peter Quon
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 1948
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Leave Granted Under S.1025 Criminal Code
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession of Firearm, Armed Robbery, Statutory Construction, Double Punishment/res Judicata
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Possession of Firearm Armed Robbery Statutory Construction Double Punishment/res Judicata

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty The King

Appellant/plaintiff

Peter Quon

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Leave Granted Under S.1025 Criminal Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'any criminal offence' in s.122 of the Criminal Code includes offences the essential element of which is possession of a firearm capable of being concealed on the person
  2. 2 Whether a conviction and sentence under s.122 can be imposed in addition to conviction and sentence for an offence whose essential element is possession of such a firearm
  3. 3 Proper rule of statutory construction to apply where literal reading produces inconsistency or apparent absurdity within the Code

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that to avoid absurdities, inconsistencies and repugnancies with other Code provisions the phrase 'any criminal offence' in s.122 must be restricted so it does not include offences whose essential element is possession of a firearm capable of being concealed on the person; therefore s.122 does not apply where possession is an essential element of the underlying offence and a separate conviction under s.122 in such circumstances is not permitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under section 122 quashed (s.122 not applicable where possession of the firearm is an essential element of the underlying offence)