Ferguson v. The Queen / The Queen v. Ferguson

Ferguson v. The Queen / The Queen v. Ferguson

The Court allowed the accused's appeal and set aside the conviction for unlawful possession because receiving stolen goods is not a lesser included offence of robbery where the indictment contains only a robbery count; accordingly the Court of Queen's Bench should not have substituted that verdict, and the Attorney General's cross-appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction because it raised a mixed question of law and fact rather than a pure question of law.

Citation
[1962] SCR 229
Parties
Appellant (accused) / Respondent (in Crown Cross Appeal): William Fergusson; Respondent (crown) / Appellant (in Cross Appeal): Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1961
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side; Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal of accused allowed; conviction under s.296 set aside; appeal of Attorney General quashed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Unlawful Possession (receiving Stolen Goods), Included Offence, Jurisdiction of Crown Appeal Under S.598, Substitution of Verdict Under S.592
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Appeal Evidence Indictment Law Robbery Unlawful Possession (receiving Stolen Goods) Included Offence Jurisdiction of Crown Appeal Under S.598 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Fergusson

Appellant (accused) / Respondent (in Crown Cross Appeal)

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent (crown) / Appellant (in Cross Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side; Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unlawful possession (receiving stolen goods) is an offence included in robbery
  2. 2 Whether an appellate court may substitute a conviction for an included offence when the indictment contains only a count for the greater offence
  3. 3 Whether the Attorney General's appeal was within Supreme Court jurisdiction under s.598 as a pure question of law

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the accused's appeal and set aside the conviction for unlawful possession because receiving stolen goods is not a lesser included offence of robbery where the indictment contains only a robbery count; accordingly the Court of Queen's Bench should not have substituted that verdict, and the Attorney General's cross-appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction because it raised a mixed question of law and fact rather than a pure question of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal of accused allowed; conviction under s.296 set aside; appeal of Attorney General quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Conviction under s.296 of the Criminal Code set aside and order of the Court of Queen's Bench quashed
  • Appeal of the Attorney General quashed for lack of jurisdiction