R. v. J.C.H.
- Citation
- 2005 BCCA 149
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 9 March 2005
- Posture
- Criminal Robbery / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 9 March 2005
- Posture
- Criminal Robbery / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court accepted the Crown's concession that the evidence could not support the conviction, allowed the appeal and entered a verdict of acquittal.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; verdict of acquittal entered; time for filing notice of appeal extended.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Verdict of acquittal entered
- Order extending time for filing the notice of appeal
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Respondent Counsel: G.D. McKinnon, Q.C.J.C.H.
Appellant Counsel: B.D. Levine03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Robbery / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence could not support a finding of guilt
- 02
Appropriate appellate remedy where conviction cannot be supported by the evidence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence was incapable of supporting a finding of guilt.
- Respondent
- Crown conceded the evidence could not support the conviction, conceded the verdict was unreasonable and that the appropriate outcome was entry of a verdict of acquittal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law/precedent
An appellate court may overturn a verdict that is unreasonable because the evidence cannot support a finding of guilt.
- 02
Common law/precedent
Where conviction is unsupported by the evidence the appellate court may enter a verdict of acquittal; concessions by Crown on sufficiency of evidence are binding on outcome.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court accepted the Crown's concession that the evidence could not support the conviction, allowed the appeal and entered a verdict of acquittal.
Obiter and limits
- There was a second ground of appeal which the Court did not need to decide
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; verdict of acquittal entered; time for filing notice of appeal extended.
- Appeal allowed
- Verdict of acquittal entered
- Order extending time for filing the notice of appeal
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 9 March 2005
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.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Judgment· 9 March 2005
2005 BCCA 149 R. v. J.C.H.
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. J.C.H., 2005 BCCA 149 Date: 20050309 Docket: CA032122 Between: Regina Respondent And J.C.H. (Y.C.J.A.) Appellant Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Esson The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall Oral Reasons for Judgment B.D. Levine Counsel for the Appellant G.D. McKinnon, Q.C. Counsel for the Respondent Place and Date: Vancouver, British Columbia 9 March 2005 [1] ESSON J.A.: This is an appeal from a conviction by a Provincial Court judge on a charge of robbery. The first ground of appeal is that the verdict is unreasonable in that the evidence was not capable of founding a conclusion of guilt. The Crown in its factum has conceded that the evidence could not support that finding and that the verdict therefore was unreasonable and has conceded that the appropriate outcome is to enter a verdict of acquittal. There is a second ground of appeal to which I need not refer. We have read the factums and transcript. [2] Having regard to the matters which I have mentioned, I would allow the appeal and enter a verdict of acquittal. [3] NEWBURY J.A.: I agree. [4] HALL J.A.: I agree. (discussion with counsel) [5] ESSON J.A.: There will be an order extending the time for filing the notice of appeal. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Esson"
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.