R. v. Pope
- Citation
- 2022 SCC 8
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 21 March 2022
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered March 21, 2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 21 March 2022
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered March 21, 2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The majority concluded that the trial judge failed to explain the distinction between murder and manslaughter with sufficient clarity, particularly regarding intent, and that the instructional error could have affected the verdict; accordingly the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for second degree murder quashed; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction quashed
- New trial ordered
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: Dana E. SullivanCraig Pope
Respondent Counsel: Mark GruchyAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 39,817
- Judges Count: 9
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered March 21, 2022
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the included offence of manslaughter
- 02
Whether the judge adequately explained the distinction between murder and manslaughter with respect to intent
- 03
Whether any instructional error required quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown argued the trial judge's instructions were legally adequate and that the conviction for second degree murder should stand.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued the jury was not properly instructed on manslaughter and on the distinction of intent between murder and manslaughter, warranting quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on jury charges
Trial judges must adequately instruct juries on included offences and clearly explain the mental elements that distinguish murder from manslaughter.
- 02
Appellate review principles in criminal law
An appellate court may order a new trial where an instructional defect could have affected the verdict.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The majority concluded that the trial judge failed to explain the distinction between murder and manslaughter with sufficient clarity, particularly regarding intent, and that the instructional error could have affected the verdict; accordingly the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.
Obiter and limits
- There was a four-justice dissent that would have allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the instructions sufficient on the elements of manslaughter.
- Comments emphasize the need for clarity when instructing juries about mens rea distinctions between homicide offences.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for second degree murder quashed; new trial ordered.
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction quashed
- New trial ordered
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 21 March 2022
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· 21 March 2022
R. v. Pope Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2022-03-21 Neutral citation 2022 SCC 8 Report [2022] 1 SCR 69 Case number 39817 Judges Wagner, Richard; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; Jamal, Mahmud On appeal from Newfoundland and Labrador Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Pope, 2022 SCC 8, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 69 Appeal Heard: March 21, 2022 Judgment Rendered: March 21, 2022 Docket: 39817 Between: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Craig Pope Respondent Coram: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 2) Wagner C.J. Majority: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Brown, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. Dissent: Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe and Martin JJ. Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Craig Pope Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Pope 2022 SCC 8 File No.: 39817. 2022: March 21. Present: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland and labrador Criminal law — Charge to jury — Manslaughter — Accused charged with second degree murder — Trial judge instructing jury on second degree murder and included offence of manslaughter — Jury finding accused guilty of second degree murder — Accused appealing conviction on basis that jury not properly instructed on manslaughter — Majority of Court of Appeal holding that trial judge erred by failing to properly instruct jury on manslaughter as he did not explain difference between murder and manslaughter with sufficient clarity, particularly regarding the question of intent — Majority quashing conviction and ordering new trial —
Dissenting judge finding that trial judge’s instructions sufficient on elements of manslaughter — Order for new trial upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (Welsh, Goodridge and Butler JJ.A.), 2021 NLCA 47, 74 C.R. (7th) 1, 466 D.L.R. (4th) 640, [2021] N.J. No. 234 (QL), 2021 CarswellNfld 287 (WL), quashing the conviction of the accused for second degree murder and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed, Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe and Martin JJ. dissenting. Dana E. Sullivan, for the appellant. Mark Gruchy, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — A majority of this Court, made of Justice Moldaver, Justice Karakatsanis, Justice Brown, Justice Kasirer and Justice Jamal, would dismiss the appeal, essentially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, whereas myself, Justice Côté, Justice Rowe and Justice Martin would allow the appeal, essentially for the reasons of Justice Goodridge. [2] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Special Prosecutions Office, St. John’s. Solicitor for the respondent: Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, St. John’s.
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.