R. v. Henley
- Citation
- [1991] 1 SCR 116
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 29 January 1991
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 29 January 1991
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered because the conviction rested on Criminal Code provisions (s.213(a)) that could not sustain the conviction as applied; the Crown consented to allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
02
Material facts
Parties
Reginald Henley
Appellant Counsel: Richard GaudreauHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Sylvie RousselAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 21,703
- Report Page: 116
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Criminal Code s.213(a) supports a valid conviction for constructive first degree murder
- 02
Whether the provisions of the Criminal Code relied on are unconstitutional
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant challenged the validity of the conviction for first degree murder based on constructive murder and contended that the statutory provision relied on (Criminal Code s.213(a)) was unconstitutional and could not sustain the conviction.
- Respondent
- The Crown defended the conviction in earlier proceedings but, by consent at the Supreme Court, agreed to allow the appeal and the ordering of a new trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s.213(a)
Statutory provision defining constructive murder must be constitutionally valid to sustain conviction
- 02
Constitutional law principles as applied by the Supreme Court of Canada
Where a conviction rests on an unconstitutional provision, appellate relief including ordering a new trial is appropriate
- 03
Supreme Court practice and procedure
Crown consent to appellate disposition is operative in determining final order
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered because the conviction rested on Criminal Code provisions (s.213(a)) that could not sustain the conviction as applied; the Crown consented to allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
- Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 29 January 1991
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· 29 January 1991
R. v. Henley Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1991-01-29 Report [1991] 1 SCR 116 Case number 21703 Judges Lamer, Antonio; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; Stevenson, William; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Quebec Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 21703 Decision Content R. v. Henley, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 116 Reginald Henley Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Henley File No.: 21703. 1991: January 29. Present: Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Criminal law ‑‑ Murder ‑‑ Constructive murder ‑‑ Criminal Code provisions unconstitutional ‑‑ Appeal allowed and new trial ordered ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 213(a). APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, J.E. 89‑1484, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction on a charge of first degree murder. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered. Richard Gaudreau, for the appellant. Sylvie Roussel, for the respondent. //Lamer C.J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer C.J. ‑‑ By consent of the Crown, the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Ivan Lerner, Montréal. Solicitor for the respondent: Jacques Gauvin, Ste‑Foy.
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.