R. v. Babinski
- Citation
- [1992] 3 SCR 467
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 November 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter Issues) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 November 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter Issues) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Majority held the accused's statement was properly excluded under s.24(2) for breach of the right to counsel, but exclusion did not mandate an acquittal; the Court affirmed the ordering of a new trial on other grounds stated by the Court of Appeal while upholding the trial judge's exclusion of the statement.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; new trial ordered; trial judge's exclusion of the accused's statement upheld by the majority.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- New trial ordered.
- Accused's statement excluded from evidence.
02
Material facts
Parties
Richard Raymond Babinski
Appellant/accused Counsel: Jack GemmellHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent/crown Counsel: Jay L. Naster03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (charter Issues) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's statement violated the Charter right to counsel
- 02
Whether the statement should be excluded under s.24(2) as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute
- 03
Whether exclusion of the statement requires acquittal or whether a new trial should be ordered
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the statement was obtained in breach of the Charter right to counsel and that it was properly excluded by the trial judge; exclusion was required to protect Charter rights and the integrity of the administration of justice.
- Respondent
- Crown argued exclusion was improper and that the Court of Appeal correctly ordered a new trial; alternatively Crown sought a new trial despite exclusion of the statement.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.10(b)
Right to counsel protects accused's entitlement to seek and obtain legal advice on arrest or detention
- 02
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.24(2) and established Supreme Court jurisprudence
Evidence obtained in breach of Charter rights must be excluded if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Majority held the accused's statement was properly excluded under s.24(2) for breach of the right to counsel, but exclusion did not mandate an acquittal; the Court affirmed the ordering of a new trial on other grounds stated by the Court of Appeal while upholding the trial judge's exclusion of the statement.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; new trial ordered; trial judge's exclusion of the accused's statement upheld by the majority.
- Appeal dismissed.
- New trial ordered.
- Accused's statement excluded from evidence.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 4 November 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 4 November 1992
R. v. Babinski Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-11-04 Report [1992] 3 SCR 467 Case number 22622 Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Ontario Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 22622 Decision Content R. v. Babinski, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 467 Richard Raymond Babinski Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Babinski File No.: 22622. 1992: November 4. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Admissibility of evidence ‑‑ Bringing administration of justice into disrepute ‑‑ Violation of right to counsel ‑‑ Accused's statement properly excluded. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 50 O.A.C. 341, 67 C.C.C. (3d) 187, 8 C.R.R. (2d) 378, allowing the Crown's appeal from the accused's acquittal on a charge of first degree murder* and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. Jack Gemmell, for the appellant. Jay L. Naster, for the respondent. //Lamer C.J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are ready to hand down judgment now. We agree with the Court of Appeal that a new trial should be held on the grounds stated by them, save for that relating to the admissibility of the statement,
Justice L'Heureux‑Dubé dissenting on this point only. We agree with the trial judge's decision to exclude it. L'Heureux‑Dubé J. agrees with the Court of Appeal that the statement was improperly excluded. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Jack Gemmell, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto. * See Erratum [1993] 1 S.C.R. iv
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.