In Re Gerson / In Re Nightingale

In Re Gerson / In Re Nightingale

The trial judge lawfully exercised the inherent common‑law power of a superior court to summarily punish contempt in the face of the court for refusing to be sworn and answer; section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act does not justify refusal and provides use immunity; Criminal Code s.165 does not displace the inherent summary power; therefore the committals and three‑month sentences were lawful and the habeas petitions fail.

Citation
[1946] SCR 538
Parties
Petitioner: Harold Samuel Gerson; Petitioner: Matt Simmons Nightingale; Respondent: The King (Crown)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 1946
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Challenging Detention After Summary Contempt Sentence Arising From a Criminal Trial / In Chambers — Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Compelled Testimony, Privilege Against Self‑incrimination, Inherent Contempt Powers, Canada Evidence Act S.5, Criminal Code S.165
Source Language
English
Contempt of Court Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Habeas Corpus Compelled Testimony Privilege Against Self‑incrimination Inherent Contempt Powers Canada Evidence Act S.5 +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold Samuel Gerson

Petitioner

Matt Simmons Nightingale

Petitioner

The King (Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Habeas Corpus Challenging Detention After Summary Contempt Sentence Arising From a Criminal Trial / In Chambers — Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary committal and sentence for contempt by a trial judge was lawful
  2. 2 Whether section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act justified refusal to be sworn or answer
  3. 3 Whether the Criminal Code s.165 displaces the inherent summary power to punish contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge lawfully exercised the inherent common‑law power of a superior court to summarily punish contempt in the face of the court for refusing to be sworn and answer; section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act does not justify refusal and provides use immunity; Criminal Code s.165 does not displace the inherent summary power; therefore the committals and three‑month sentences were lawful and the habeas petitions fail.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Writs of habeas corpus refused
  • Petitioners to remain detained pursuant to the three‑month committal sentences