R. v. Pickton

R. v. Pickton

The judge held that because both parties had not consented to a court-led s.638 inquiry he would not pose the challenge-for-cause questions himself; recognizing the defence' initiative, he treated the matter as essentially a defence challenge and permitted defence counsel to pose limited, circumscribed questions focused on pre-trial publicity and the juror's ability to set aside any formed opinion, while requiring judicial approval for any further or follow-up questions.

Citation
2006 BCSC 1832
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Robert William Pickton
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Jury Selection Ruling on S.632 and S.638 (challenge for Cause)
Outcome
Challenge for cause on pre-trial publicity permitted; defence counsel allowed to pose specified questions; judge declined to conduct the s.638 panel questioning without both parties' consent.
Legal Topics
S.632 Criminal Code, S.638 Criminal Code, Challenge for Cause, Pre Trial Publicity, Juror Impartiality, Juror Questioning
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Jury Selection Procedural Law Media and Publicity S.632 Criminal Code S.638 Criminal Code Challenge for Cause Pre Trial Publicity +2 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Robert William Pickton

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Jury Selection Ruling on S.632 and S.638 (challenge for Cause)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of trial judge's authority to question prospective jurors under s.632
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge or counsel should pose s.638 challenge-for-cause questions
  3. 3 Proper scope and content of juror questioning on pre-trial publicity

Ratio Decidendi

The judge held that because both parties had not consented to a court-led s.638 inquiry he would not pose the challenge-for-cause questions himself; recognizing the defence' initiative, he treated the matter as essentially a defence challenge and permitted defence counsel to pose limited, circumscribed questions focused on pre-trial publicity and the juror's ability to set aside any formed opinion, while requiring judicial approval for any further or follow-up questions.

Court Disposition

Challenge for cause on pre-trial publicity permitted; defence counsel allowed to pose specified questions; judge declined to conduct the s.638 panel questioning without both parties' consent.

Orders

  • Defence counsel permitted to pose challenge-for-cause questions under s.638.
  • The following questions shall be asked of prospective jurors during the s.638 challenge stage: 1) To what extent have you read, heard or seen anything about this case or Mr. Pickton in the media? Have you obtained information from any other sources and if so what are those sources and circumstances? 2) Have you...