R. v. Renouf (A.), (2014) 437 Sask.R. 91 (QB)

R. v. Renouf (A.) (2014), 437 Sask.R. 91 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.046

Albert Renouf (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2013 Q.B. No. 62; 2014 SKQB 36)

Indexed As: R. v. Renouf (A.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Moose Jaw

Schwann, J.

January 31, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his blood-alcohol content was over the legal limit. He alleged that the identification evidence was insufficient to convict, and that his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights had been breached. He also argued that the admissions of driving he made to a police officer should not be admitted for the truth of their contents because a separate voir dire had not been held to determine voluntariness.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at (2013), 413 Sask.R. 226, convicted the accused. The Crown had proven identity beyond a reasonable doubt and there were no Charter breaches. A voir dire had been held and it was not restricted to Charter challenges. The court noted that the accused could have but did not canvass the issue of voluntariness at the voir dire. The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by admitting and relying on the statements in the absence of a voir dire to determine voluntariness. The Crown conceded the appeal and submitted that the matter should be remitted back to the Provincial Court for a new trial.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and directed a verdict of acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4958

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds for refusing new trial - Renouf was charged with driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit - The core issue at trial was whether Renouf was the operator of a truck that a witness reported had been driving erratically - The officer who responded to the report found the truck parked behind an apartment building - It was unoccupied - A tenant indicated that the truck belonged to Renouf and directed the officer to his apartment - The officer went to Renouf's apartment and advised him that she was investigating a possible impaired driver - Renouf responded that he had been home for an hour, that he had too much to drink and was impaired, and that he had just returned from the liquor store - He also commented about the time of his last drink and asked the officer not to take him to jail - The trial judge found that the witness' identification evidence was unreliable - However, Renouf's statements to the officer were sufficient to establish his identity as the driver of the truck beyond a reasonable doubt - Renouf was convicted - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by admitting and relying on the statements in the absence of a voir dire to determine voluntariness - The Crown conceded the appeal, but submitted that the error was merely procedural in nature and could be corrected by a new trial with a separate voir dire to determine voluntariness - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and entered a verdict of acquittal - It was beyond doubt that a statement made by an accused to a person in authority had to be proven by the Crown to be voluntary before the statement could be admitted into evidence - Renouf's statements were inadmissible, with the result that there was no evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could have convicted Renouf - Accordingly, the only appropriate course was to direct a verdict of acquittal - An appeal court had to assess the evidence that was properly before the trial judge, and not assess evidence from the purview of what might be admissible at a second trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 5058

Appeals - Indictable offences - Substitution of verdict - Substitution of verdict of acquittal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4958 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5332

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Necessity and purpose of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4958 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Schoenthal (D.L.) (2007), 299 Sask.R. 1; 408 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SKCA 80, refd to. [para. 14].

Ibrahim v. R., [1914] A.C. 599 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Erven, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926; 25 N.R. 49; 30 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 49 A.P.R. 89, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Barry P. Nychuk, for the appellant;

Robbie D. Parker, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Schwann, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Moose Jaw, who delivered the following judgment on January 31, 2014.