International Law

R. v. Dinardo

Perhaps the most cited/litigated/commented on case in Canadian criminal law today is W. (D.). Basically that case covers he said/she said credibility situations and sets down the process of reasoning that a trial judge is supposed to follow in order to find an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And while it didn’t really say anything new, the three-step process it outlines has taken on a bit of a life of its own. Once again the Supreme Court insists that there is “nothing sacrosanct” about the W. (D.) formula. However, in a case involving the occasionally dodgy testimony of a complainant with a mental disability it was important that the “substance” of the W. (D.) instructions be respected. In this case such a caveat was dealt with under the rubric of the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons for judgement. Meaning “the inquiry into the sufficiency of the reasons should be directed at whether the reasons respond to the case?s live issues.”

I like that “live issues.” Expect to hear more of it.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on May 09, 2008 (boomark / email).