R. v. Riley
- Citation
- 2020 SCC 31
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 3 November 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 3 November 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal dissenting reasoning that the trial judge erred in giving the Vetrovec warning in the circumstances and that the error could not be treated as harmless or cured by the curative proviso; accordingly the convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered on charges of second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Convictions quashed
- New trial ordered on charges of second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm
- Application for leave to appeal unnecessary as a result of the judgment
02
Material facts
Parties
Randy Desmond Riley
Appellant Counsel: Lee V. Seshagiri and Roger A. BurrillHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: James A. Gumpert, Q.C. and Melanie PerryAmounts and remedies
- Docket Number: 39,006
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred in giving a Vetrovec warning in respect of a former co-accused who testified for the Crown
- 02
Whether that error was harmless or could be cured by the curative proviso
- 03
Whether the convictions for second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm should stand or be quashed and a new trial ordered
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the trial judge erred by giving a Vetrovec warning in respect of a Crown-called former co-accused whose evidence was exculpatory, that the warning was inappropriate and prejudicial and that the convictions must be quashed and a new trial ordered.
- Respondent
- Crown/respondent submitted that even if the Vetrovec warning was erroneous the error was harmless and the curative proviso (Criminal Code) could be applied to uphold the convictions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Vetrovec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811
A Vetrovec warning is a cautionary instruction permitting the jury to treat evidence of potentially unreliable witnesses with appropriate caution
- 02
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s.686(1)(b)
The curative proviso permits an appellate court to dismiss an appeal if it is satisfied that an error did not contribute to the verdict
- 03
Appellate jurisprudence and common law principles on trial fairness
Where a trial error undermines the fairness of the trial or cannot be said to be harmless, a new trial must be ordered
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal dissenting reasoning that the trial judge erred in giving the Vetrovec warning in the circumstances and that the error could not be treated as harmless or cured by the curative proviso; accordingly the convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered on charges of second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Appeal allowed
- Convictions quashed
- New trial ordered on charges of second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm
- Application for leave to appeal unnecessary as a result of the judgment
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 3 November 2020
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· 3 November 2020
R. v. Riley Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2020-11-03 Neutral citation 2020 SCC 31 Case number 39006 Judges Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas On appeal from Nova Scotia Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Riley, 2020 SCC 31 Appeal Heard: November 3, 2020 Judgment Rendered: November 3, 2020 Docket: 39006 Between: Randy Desmond Riley Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Martin and Kasirer JJ. Unanimous Judgment Read By: (para.
1) Karakatsanis J. Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports. r. v. riley Randy Desmond Riley Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Riley 2020 SCC 31 File No.: 39006. 2020: November 3. Present: Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Martin and Kasirer JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for nova scotia Criminal law — Charge to jury — Vetrovec warning — Curative proviso — Crown calling former co-accused as witness at trial — Witness giving testimony exculpatory of accused — Trial judge giving jury Vetrovec warning to caution them about relying on witness’s evidence — Jury convicting accused of second degree murder and unlawful possession of firearm — Majority of Court of Appeal concluding that trial judge erred in giving Vetrovec warning but that error was harmless in its effect and curative proviso applied — Dissenting judge finding it inappropriate to apply curative proviso — Convictions quashed and new trial ordered. APPEAL from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Beveridge, Scanlan and Bourgeois JJ.A.), 2019 NSCA 94, 450 D.L.R. (4th) 251, 160 W.C.B. (2d) 267, [2019] N.S.J. No. 524 (QL), 2019 CarswellNS 875 (WL Can.), affirming the convictions of the accused for second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Appeal allowed. Lee V. Seshagiri and Roger A.
Burrill, for the appellant. James A. Gumpert, Q.C., and Melanie Perry, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Karakatsanis J. — We are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed, for the reasons of Scanlan J.A. in the Court of Appeal. The appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed and a new trial is ordered on the charges of second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. As a result, it is unnecessary to hear the application for leave to appeal. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Nova Scotia Legal Aid, Halifax. Solicitor for the respondent: Public Prosecution Service of Nova Scotia, Halifax.
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.