R. v. Barton

Listen to Podcast

Case Brief

Facts

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of an Indigenous sex worker found in his hotel room. The cause of death was a significant vaginal wound. The Crown's theory was that the accused inflicted the wound during commercial sex, while the deceased was incapacitated. Alternatively, the Crown argued for unlawful act manslaughter if the death occurred during a sexual assault. The accused testified about consensual sexual activity with the deceased on the night before and the night of her death, claiming the bleeding was unexpected and accidental. He admitted causing her death but denied intent and using a sharp object. He gave inconsistent statements to police and others after the event. The accused testified about prior sexual activity with the deceased without a prior application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code. The Crown did not object, and the trial judge did not hold a hearing on the admissibility of this evidence.

Issues

1. Did the trial judge err in failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding the admissibility of evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity? 2. Did the trial judge err in his charge to the jury regarding the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent? 3. If errors occurred, did they warrant a new trial, and if so, on which charge(s)?

Legal Analysis

The majority found that the trial judge erred by failing to comply with s. 276, which mandates a hearing and limiting instructions concerning evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity. This error impacted the instructions on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, allowing misleading evidence and mistakes of law to remain unaddressed. The majority held that the errors warranted a new trial, but only on the charge of unlawful act manslaughter, as the errors did not demonstrably affect the acquittal on the murder charge. The dissenting justices argued that the judge's failure to apply s. 276 and his failure to provide limiting instructions regarding the victim's Indigenous status and sex work created significant prejudice, affecting both the murder and manslaughter charges. They emphasized the trial judge's failure to address systemic biases against Indigenous women and sex workers. They also criticized the instruction on after-the-fact conduct, claiming the instructions were contradictory and confusing.

Decision

The appeal was allowed in part. A new trial was ordered on the charge of unlawful act manslaughter. The acquittal on first-degree murder was upheld. The majority reasoned that while errors concerning s. 276 and jury instructions occurred, they did not demonstrably affect the acquittal on the murder charge. The dissenting justices would have ordered a new trial on both charges due to the pervasive prejudicial impact of the admitted evidence and inadequate jury instructions.

Transcript

Welcome back to Casepod, everyone! Today, we're diving into a truly fascinating and complex case that highlights the intricate interplay between criminal law, evidentiary rules, and systemic biases within the justice system. We're looking at a case involving a first-degree murder charge, stemming from the death of an Indigenous sex worker. The accused admitted to causing her death but claimed it was accidental, during consensual sex. The core legal issues here are really compelling. First, the trial judge completely bypassed section 276 of the Criminal Code. This section is crucial – it mandates a hearing *before* any evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity can be admitted. This wasn't done here. The accused testified about prior sexual encounters with the victim without any such hearing. The Crown didn't object, and the judge didn't intervene. That's a significant procedural error. The second major issue revolves around the jury instructions on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent. The errors in handling the section 276 issue directly impacted the judge's ability to properly instruct the jury on this defence. The flawed handling of the prior sexual activity evidence likely muddied the waters around consent. The appeal court split on the consequences of these errors. The majority agreed that the trial judge messed up – significantly – by ignoring section 276. They also acknowledged problems with the jury instructions. However, they felt these errors only impacted the unlawful act manslaughter charge. They believed the evidence against the accused for first-degree murder was strong enough that the errors didn't affect the acquittal on that charge. But here's where it gets really interesting. The dissenting judges strongly disagreed. They argued that the failure to follow section 276, combined with the inadequate jury instructions, created a deeply prejudicial atmosphere, impacting *both* charges. They pointed out the systemic biases against Indigenous women and sex workers, arguing the judge failed to address these biases in his instructions. They also highlighted confusing and contradictory instructions related to the accused's actions after the death. The end result? The appeal was partially allowed. A new trial was ordered, but only for the unlawful act manslaughter charge. The acquittal on the first-degree murder charge stands. This highlights the crucial role of procedural fairness and the complexities of appellate review. It also underscores the ongoing need for judicial sensitivity to systemic biases impacting marginalized communities within the legal system. A fascinating case, and one that really makes you think about the far-reaching consequences of seemingly minor procedural oversights.