Practice exercises

Section 763 and subsections 764(1) to (4) of the Criminal Code state as follows:
763. Where a person is bound by recognizance to appear before a court, justice or provincial court judge for any purpose and the session or sittings of that court or the proceedings are adjourned or an order is made changing the place of trial, that person and his sureties continue to be bound by the recognizance in like manner as if it had been entered into with relation to the resumed proceedings or the trial at the time and place at which the proceedings are ordered to be resumed or the trial is ordered to be held.
764. (1) Where an accused is bound by recognizance to appear for trial, his arraignment or conviction does not discharge the recognizance, but it continues to bind him and his sureties, if any, for his appearance until he is discharged or sentenced, as the case may be.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the court, justice or provincial court judge may commit an accused to prison or may require him to furnish new or additional sureties for his appearance until he is discharged or sentenced, as the case may be.
(3) The sureties of an accused who is bound by recognizance to appear for trial are discharged if he is committed to prison pursuant to subsection (2).
(4) The provisions of section 763 and subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section shall be endorsed on any recognizance entered into pursuant to this Act. R.S., c.C-34, s.698."
256 words

Criminal Code

Numbers and names

Where a person is bound by recognizance

Specialized terminology/phraseology: legal phraseology

Justice

Specialized terminology/phraseology

an order is made

Grammar passive form of verb

his sureties

Specialized terminology / phraseology: Legal terminology

his sureties continue to be bound by recognizance in like manner as if it had been entered into with relation to the resumed proceedings

Register formal level of language

or the trial is ordered to be held

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position: last clause of a very long sentence

Where an accused is bound by recognizance to appear for trial, his arraignment or conviction does not discharge the recognizance, but it continues to bind him

Structure - long sentence with several clauses)

Appearance

General vocabulary

until he is discharged

General vocabulary

until he is discharged or sentenced, as the case may be

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position: end of long sentence

Notwithstanding subsection (1)

Register formal level of language

provincial court judge

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

may commit an accused to prison

Grammar modal auxiliary + verb

the court, justice or provincial court judge may commit an accused to prison or may require him to furnish new or additional sureties for his appearance until he is discharged or sentenced

Structure - complex sentence)

new or additional sureties

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

section 763 and subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section

Numbers and names

pursuant to this Act

Register formal level of language

(1) A sex offender who is subject to an order under the Sex Offender Registration Act shall report to a registration centre referred to in section 7.1 within 15 days after
(a) the order is made, if they are convicted of the offence in connection with which the order is made but are not given a custodial sentence;
(b) they receive an absolute or conditional discharge under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code , if they are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the offence in connection with which the order is made;
(c) they are released from custody pending the determination of an appeal relating to the offence in connection with which the order is made; or
(d) they are released from custody after serving the custodial portion of a sentence for the offence in connection with which the order is made.
(2) A person who is subject to an obligation under section 490.019 of the Criminal Code or section 227.06 of the National Defence Act shall report to a registration centre referred to in section 7.1 of this Act.
(a) if they are not in custody on the day on which they become subject to the obligation, within 15 days after that day; or
(b) in any other case, within 15 days after.
(3) If a sex offender is required to report to a registration centre designated under this Act, they shall report in person.
(4) A sex offender shall not leave Canada before they report under this section of the Act.
258 words

(1) When a sex offender reports to a registration centre, they shall provide the following information to a person who collects information at the registration centre:
(a) their given name and surname, and every alias that they use;
(b) their date of birth and gender;
(c) the address of their main residence and every secondary residence or, if there is no such address, the location of that place;
(d) the address of every place at which they are employed or retained, or are engaged on a volunteer basis or, if there is no such address, the location of that place;
(i) if applicable, their status as an officer or a non commissioned member of the Canadian Forces within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act and the address and telephone number of their unit within the meaning of that subsection;
(e) the address of every educational institution at which they are enrolled or, if there is no such address, the location of that place;
(f) a telephone number at which they may be reached, if any, for every place referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d), and the number of every mobile telephone or pager in their possession; and
(g) their height and weight and a description of every physical distinguishing mark that they have.
(2) When a sex offender reports to a registration centre, the person who collects the information from them may ask them when and where they were convicted of, or found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for, an offence in connection with which an order was made.
267 words

My name is Kevin Miller. I am the youngest brother of the late Linda Miller. She had been like a mother to me since our mother died when I was only four - she was sixteen at the time and took over my care. I still remember the day before my twentieth birthday when I saw her entering my sister's house ... She was energetic, a ball of fire with a heart of gold. I was fortunate to have been with her that day. Unfortunately, this would be the last time I would ever see her. That was three years ago today.
The following month I moved to California from Canada and soon afterwards I found a job in Silicon Valley. One day, when I was doing some research on line, I was shocked to see that the DNA of a woman named Linda Miller had been uncovered in an abandoned farm back home.
From California, I contacted my sister Cynthia who had not told me anything about Linda's disappearance. My relatives did not want to contact me until they had more definite information about her whereabouts, after all, she would occasionally go away for a few weeks to "find herself." My family was in an apparent state of distress as a result of the discovery of Linda's DNA and some of her clothing in the abandoned farm.
The shock, the anger, and the lack of answers: how could this happen? My family rallied together during this difficult time. Linda's body was never found. I don't know if this nightmare is ever going to end.
264 words

She had been like a mother to me since our mother died when I was only four

Structure - complex sentence

she was sixteen

Numbers and names second of two numbers

my care

General vocabulary

I still remember the day before my twentieth birthday when I saw her entering my sister's house

Structure - complex sentence

a ball of fire

Idiomatic language - metaphor

a heart of gold

Idiomatic language - fixed phrase

That was three years ago today

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position - end of sentence

Silicon Valley

Numbers and names

DNA

Specialized terminology/phraseology - Forensic medical terminology

in an abandoned farm back home

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

her whereabouts

General vocabulary

after all

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position - linking phrase at beginning of clause

she would occasionally go away

Grammar - modal auxiliary + verb

to "find herself"

Idiomatic language - fixed phrase

in an apparent state of distress

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

in an - apparent state of distress

General vocabulary

(how) could - this happen

Grammar - modal auxiliary + verb

rallied together

General vocabulary

My husband, Peter Thomas, was killed by a young man driving a stolen car. He had phoned me at noon to tell me he was going to the bank during his lunch hour and five minutes later he was crossing the street when he was struck down. He was killed instantly. I was devastated when I heard the news. We had been married only four years and had known each other since grade school. We had just bought our first home but we really had no other savings and Peter didn't have life insurance. I know that somehow I will be able to get along financially, but I don't know how I'm going to cope without Peter.
My brothers Bill and Dan Miller, together with my sister have been helping me with my son, while I look for a job, not an easy thing to do with the current situation. But despite all their help and support, I have not been able to control my emotions that range from anger, to rage, to helplessness, loss and mostly pain. A deep depression has taken over me. I don't know what is going to become of me.
I am afraid that the killer will never be brought to justice. Although there were three men running away from the car, not one of them has admitted being the driver. Their fingerprints are inside the car, including the steering wheel. I am sure a good defence lawyer will get them off with possession of stolen property and a suspended sentence since they have no criminal record.
262 words

I am a friend of Kevin Miller, and have been for the last fifteen years. We were altar boys together and when Danny was born, I was asked to be his godfather. Danny had just turned five when he died with his mother at the hands of a psychopath.
Everyone asks me why Kevin has not been in court for the trial of his wife and son's killer. The answer is this: the defence lawyer subpoenaed Kevin as a witness and witnesses are not allowed in court before they testify. So, Kevin waits for me at home for me to arrive with the daily news, before he reads the paper and before the CBC news at 6 p.m.
In my friendship with Kevin, his face has always shown a hint of mischief and bright eyes that were always full of life. That face and those eyes have changed. The eyes are hollow, empty and sometimes tears flow freely, uncontrollable. The man I knew no longer exists.
I arrive at his home after each day in court and to the best of my ability I tell him of the day's events, the brutal details of the crime. I tell him the truth, the hardest being the brutality of the wound to his son's throat and the many wounds of Helen, his wife of ten years. Then we watch the news and the following day he reads the newspaper when I go to court. I have no words to describe the tragedy Kevin Miller has suffered.
256 words

Q. Ms. Thomas, you were involved in an incident that occurred on the 28th of December, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were attending a New Year's party with your friends at Kathy Campbell's house in Maple Grove?
A. Yes.
Q. And you arrived at the party at approximately 10:00 p.m.?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe for His Honour approximately how many people were at the party when you arrived?
A. About forty including Tracy, Tyler and Peter.
Q. And who are Tracy, Tyler and Peter?
A. Tyler was my boyfriend, Tracy is my best friend and Peter is her boyfriend.
Q. And can you describe what happened at the party during the time you were there?
A. Some people were dancing but most were just sitting drinking and talking.
Q. And could you tell us if anything happened shortly after midnight?
A. Yes, I was talking to Kathy and Tracy when a bunch of guys crashed the party. I knew that some of them were troublemakers from other parties they had crashed so I decided to go home.
Q. And did you leave?
A. Yeah.
Q. How did you go home?
A. Well, I live only a few blocks away and it had stopped raining so I decided to walk. I told some of my friends that I was going to walk home. Some of them were leaving and a couple of them offered me a ride.
Q. Did you accept a ride from either of them?
A. No, because they had been drinking and I thought it would be safer to walk home.
Q. Why didn't you go home with Tyler and your other friends?
A. They didn't want to leave, and me and Tyler were having an argument 'cause I didn't want to move in with him.
Q. I see. What happened then?
A. Well, I started walking but I had gone only one block when it started raining again.
Q. Yes, go on, please.
A. Well, it started to rain again, and I was getting pretty wet, but I didn't want to go back to the party, so I continued walking on home. I was walking when this car went past me. Then I saw it make a U-turn and come back towards me. The guy asked me if I needed a ride and I said that I was only two blocks from my house. He said that I was soaked and was going to get sick and the he would be really happy to take me home.
Q. Did you accept the ride?
A. Well, yes, he was very polite and I was getting pretty wet. I was cold too.
Q. What happened next?
A. Well, he started driving and I told him that my house was the other way. He said that he had to drop something off to a friend and that he would be done in ten minutes. So we went over to this house and he got off the car and took a box out of the trunk and went to the front door. He was gone for a few minutes, maybe five or ten and I was wondering what to do when he came back out. He was carrying a brown bag and came back to the car.
Q. And then where did you go?
A. He got back in the car and put the brown bag on the floor of the car in front of me. He took out two beers and offered me one.
Q. Did you take it?
A. Yeah, I was pretty thirsty.
Q. Then what happened?
A. He apologized for taking so long and I told him it was okay but I really had to get back home.
Q. Did he take you home?
A. He started driving and he was going fast. We were about halfway to my house when he seemed to have some trouble steering the car. The car started skidding and we ended up hitting a pile of dirt.
Q. Then what happened?
A. I went forward and I didn't realise I had hit the windshield until I saw the crack on it and my blood all over the dashboard. I had a cut right here on my head and I was bleeding.
Q. For the record, the witness is pointing to her forehead above the brow, the left brow. You were not wearing your seat belt?
A. I guess I must have taken it off when I was waiting in front of that house and then when he gave me the beer I forgot to buckle up again
Q. All right, Tina, can you tell His Honour what happened next?
A. Yeah, the guy freaked out. He told me to get out of there because the cops were coming... that someone must have heard us and he had some dope in the car. He grabbed the bag, got out of the car and pulled me into the bushes. Then he used his cell phone to call his brother to come and get us. He told me his brother would be there in twenty minutes. Uhm...
Q. Yes?
A. I told him that my head hurt and my neck hurt too. I told him that all I wanted was to go home, but he took a bottle from the bag and hit me with it and the assault happened.
Q. All right, Tina, I want you to tell us everything that happened. But first, I would like to ask you a few questions. Did you have anything to drink at the party?
A. Yes, I had a couple of ciders.
Q. Plus the beer you had before the accident?
A. Yes... and, I don't know if I should say this. He also offered me drugs.
Q. Did you take any?
A. Yeah, I snorted some coke.
Q. Okay, what happened next? You can take your time, Tina.
A. Okay. After he hit me on the side of the head, he offered me the coke. We were both kinda sitting in the bushes and then, all of a sudden, he pushed me down on the ground. He hit me again when I tried to get up and then he tried to rape me.
1046 words

at - approximately - 10:00 p.m.

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position - before a number

can you describe

Grammar - modal auxiliary + verb

including - Tracy, - Tyler and Peter

Numbers and names

a bunch of guys - crashed the party

Idiomatic language - not literal sense of "crash"

offered - me - a ride

General vocabulary

they had been drinking

Grammar - complex verb phrase

I didn't want - to move in with him

Idiomatic language - "move in with" is not the same as "move in"

He was carrying a - brown - bag

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

I was - pretty - thirsty

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

We were about halfway there when he seemed to have some trouble steering the car

Structure - complex sentence

dashboard

General vocabulary

For the record

Specialized terminology/phraseology - Legal terminology

His Honour

Specialized terminology/phraseology - Legal terminology

Yeah, the guy freaked out

Register - informal level of language

He told me to get out of there because the cops were coming ... that someone must have heard us and he had some dope in the car

Structure - long sentence with several clauses

He grabbed the bag, - got out of the car - and pulled me into the bushes

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position - short clause in the middle of two others

in twenty minutes

Numbers and names

Q. Did you suffer injuries in the accident, Mr. Burns?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you just tell us what injuries or what parts of your body were injured starting at the top if you will, please?
A. My head. My head, my neck, my chest.
Q. You point with your hand to what part of your chest?
A. In here. The wishbone, I guess.
Q. Yes?
A. And my back.
Q. Whereabouts in your back?
A. Just below my shoulder blades and in the bottom part of my back and my hip.
Q. Which hip?
A. My left hip, and I had a few small cuts.
Q. Where?
A. I had one on my - top of my face and on my chin and on my right hand, but they were, you know, nothing too big and...
Q. What happened to your head?
A. Yes, it was cut.
Q. Where and how big a cut?
A. On my forehead.
Q. How big?
A. And on my chin. They were just small cuts.
Q. Two small cuts?
A. Yes, didn't require any stitches.
Q. And the next place you pointed to was what?
A. Was my neck.
Q. What was wrong with your neck... what happened to your neck I should say.
A. Well, it felt like it was shoved down between my shoulder blades. My left side was very sore on my neck.
Q. Next?
A. And my chest.
Q. What was wrong with your chest?
A. Well, it felt like somebody just overlapped it, just shoved it right across, you know, this way. I didn't know what to do, I had an awful pain in the back.
Q. The back? What part of your back?
A. It just felt like it was just squashed, like, with my shoulder blades, just below my shoulder blades, and my left hip. I don't know, I guess it was where the car crashed the dashboard... was sitting on top of it.
Q. It hurt?
A. Very much, yes.
Q. What was the condition of your left hip?
A. Well, it was bruised. I had a bruise on there about twelve inches square. It just about covered my whole side like that.
Q. What kind of bruise?
A. A big one. It was... It was from... well, from where the dashboard was resting on my hip from, for the length of time I was in the car and I guess from the impact and, well, it just felt like my hip was sort of pushed into my backbone... it's what it felt like.
Q. Is there any other injury in that region?
A. My groin was injured since that, yes.
Q. Your groin?
A. Yes, my left groin. It felt like there was a bunch of tinfoil ripping up in there. Tinfoil... it was just felt like there was somebody shredding a bunch of tinfoil in my groin. It has a real burning, searing pain to it.
Q. When did that pain begin?
A. This happened after the accident, about a month after the accident, I guess. It was when I was in a curling bonspiel.
Q. What treatment did you get in the hospital?
A. I got a bunch of painkillers.
Q. Anything else?
A. X-rays, and, the orderly, he come got me, made me take a bath one day, said it would be really good for me. I got halfway into the bathtub and I couldn't get up and I couldn't get down and I finally just... they finally got me out of the bath-tub and I went right back to bed again. I couldn't move. I could just barely walk.
Q. Why?
A. Because it hurt so much. I just ached and hurt so much all over I just could barely even move.
Q. How long did you stay in the hospital?
A. Three days.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. Smithers.
Q. Where did you go when you got to Smithers?
A. To Dr. Weir.
Q. And what was done with you then?
A. Well, he was going to put me in the hospital but the place was just packed, there were people out in the hallways and everything, so then he would come visit me at home all the time in the morning and at night.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. I went to where I was living at.
Q. And what did you do there?
A. Stayed in bed, read in bed.
Q. For how long?
A. Two and a half, three weeks, I guess.
Q. And did Dr. Weir see you there?
A. Yes.
Q. How often?
A. He used to come out in the morning and at night-time to visit me. He would give me a shot. The first week he would give me something just to put me to sleep at night and he would have a look at me during the day, and then he would... he... would... prescribe me some pills afterwards for pain.
Q. After you - after that two and a half, three week period, what did you do then?
A. Well, I started to walk a bit around the trailer as much as I could. I, I walked with a cane they gave me, and I walked with that thing for about, I guess, about a month... as I got a little stronger I would... somebody would come and give me a ride and I would go downtown maybe for an hour, then somebody else would give me a lift home - three miles two-three miles out of town.
Q. And how long did you continue doing that?
A. About a month I guess. After the accident, yes... about a month I guess I was walking with the cane.
Q. Did you attempt to resume any activities then?
A. Well, I tried to increase my activities. Like a little bit more walking and stuff... like... get back to sort of normal, and then we went in this bonspiel and I was skipping and I went to sweep and I bent over and I took about two or three strokes with the broom and...
Q. With a curling broom?
A. Yes, and that's when the pain, well... whenever something went haywire in there and it just felt like I was going to pass out.
Q. Had you had any injury to your groin before this accident?
A. Well, I don't really know but my hip was so bruised that I think it was bruised at the same time, I was X-rayed again in Smithers and... there was no broken bones, but I don't know if they picked it up on the X-rays or not. I don't think so. I... I don't know.
Q. Why did you go curling?
A. Exercise, something to do. I was getting so bored and everything else, I just had to do something. I was going half crazy laying in that bloody trailer.
1162 words

Q. Mrs. Walker, you are 78 years old, soon to be 79?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm drawing your attention to last March. At that time you lived at 8491 Knight Street.
A. Yes.
Q. And I understand this is your own home?
A. Yes, I have lived there since the early 1970's.
Q. And I understand that you were at home with Maria Lopez who came over to help with the house and to cook dinner for you?
A. Yes.
Q. And there were two other persons present in the house, and they left to go shopping?
A. Yes, my husband went shopping with our grandson who is staying with us.
Q. They left to go shopping, leaving just you and Maria Lopez in the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you became involved in an incident that brings you to court today?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did that start, what happened?
A. It was about eight o'clock, I was watching TV, CNN, it was news time. Then a few minutes later, I was interrupted by a telephone call, so I got up to answer the phone. Then I went to the kitchen to get the drink of water. At that time the four men came in from the back door which was open to let in some fresh air.
Q. Okay. And that door opens off which room?
A. The kitchen.
Q. Okay. The four men that came in - had you ever seen any of these men before?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And were you able to see the face of any of these men?
A. No. They had something covering their face. Like ski masks - balaclavas.
Q. What happened then when they came in?
A. They came right into the kitchen, I didn't know who they were or what they were doing in my home. But then, one of them said that they wanted money and jewellery. And at once they told me to turn around and not look at them and then to lie down on the floor, so I did, because I knew that I didn't have any choice.
Q. Now, where was Maria Lopez at this point?
A. She was standing near the sink, finishing up the dishes.
Q. And was this person who was talking, was he talking to you or to both of you?
A. To both of us.
Q. Okay. And after he told you to lay down, what did you do?
A. We laid down on the floor face down as we were told to do.
Q. Okay. And what else did they tell you to do?
A. That's all. Then they asked if there was anybody upstairs and I said no, there was nobody upstairs.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then one man remained in the kitchen watching us. The others went upstairs.
Q. The person who was watching you, how long was he watching over you at this point?
A. Until the others came back down.
Q. Okay. While he was watching you, did he do or say anything to you, this person?
A. He took a gold bracelet from Maria.
Q. And how did that come about?
A. He saw it and told her to take it off. At first, Maria was reluctant but I persuaded her to take off the bracelet and hand it over to the guy.
Q. Okay. And what happened then when the others came downstairs?
A. They discovered the closet, down the corridor from the kitchen. So they led us to the closet.
Q. Who led you to the closet?
A. The man who had been watching us. He led Maria by the hand and I was told to hold on to Maria. They told us to close our eyes because they didn't want us to look at them.
Q. And when they led you to the closet. What kind of a closet was this? What was it used for?
A. It is a very small room. We use it as a storeroom.
Q. Okay. What happened then when you were led to this closet?
A. He turned on the light and told us to go in.
Q. Okay. And what position were you in the closet?
A. We had to go down on the floor because the closet is under the stairs and the ceiling is at an angle and very low. One of the men noticed a rope hanging from a peg in the closet, so he took it and tied us together back to back. It was so very uncomfortable, especially with my bad hip.
Q. Okay. And how long were you in the closet?
A. I can't tell you exactly. It was longer than half an hour, maybe between half an hour and one hour. It felt much longer, though.
Q. And how were you feeling during this time?
A. Maria was terrified and so was I. Maria was also worried because her son would be coming soon to take her home. So I knocked on the door and shouted that Maria was only working for us and that her son would be coming soon to pick her up, and I asked them not to hurt her son.
Q. And were you talking to the same person that had been watching you earlier?
A. I guess so.
Q. And did he have any response?
A. He said okay. He asked me how old was the boy. I said about 17 to 18, and he said okay, but Maria was still shaking.
Q. Were you frightened?
A. Of course I was. I didn't know what would happen if her son were to come in before the men left, and I had no idea what would happen to us. You know, all the home invasions that are taking place nowadays.
Q. Okay. What happened after that, Mrs. Walker?
A. Some man came down the stairs and asked me where was the safe. I told him that we had no safe in the house. Then he asked me for my purse. I told him my purse was in my bedroom. He went up again and couldn't find it so he came down again, and asked me where I had left my purse. I told him if he let me out, I would take him up to my bedroom and give him the purse. He didn't say anything but I heard him go upstairs again. I suppose he found the purse because all my money was gone.
Then they came down to the kitchen. I could hear the cabinet doors open and shut. I also heard movement in the front of the house but I am not sure where.
Q. Okay. And did you ever hear any other sounds?
A. They turned off the TV.
Q. Okay. And were you aware of what time these people left?
A. I am not certain, but it must have been around nine o'clock.
1158 words

Q. Corporal Baker, I want to take you back to the 19th day of March 1997 here in the City of Vancouver. I understand that on that date, you had dealings with a certain person who became known to you as Mario Montes; is that correct?
A. That's correct, Your Honour.
Q. Do you see that person present in court today?
A. Yes, Your Honour, he's seated with the black jacket with the number 80 on the left sleeve.
Q. Indicating the accused.
The Court: All right, noting the identification.
Q. Corporal Baker, can you please tell the Court the circumstances of how you came to have contact with Mr. Montes?
A: Yes, Your Honour, on the 19th of March, at approximately 2115 hours, 9:15 p.m., I was part of a -- a street crew drug squad undercover operation where Constable Birk was going to be acting in an undercover capacity to attempt to purchase narcotics from persons in the downtown lower eastside of Vancouver.
While I was waiting across the street on Hastings in what's referred to as the unit block, the address between zero and 99 of East Hastings, I observed Mr. Montes and another older Hispanic male standing together.
I then observed Constable Birk approach these males. She appeared to have some conversation with them and a couple of minutes later, Constable Birk moved away from these two males and Constable Birk then gave a pre-arranged signal that she had purchased narcotics.
At that time, I ran across the street. I had been on the south side of Hastings Street, and I arrested Mr. Montes for trafficking in a narcotic.
Q. Was there another officer involved in the arrest of Mr. Montes?
A. Constable McCall was also with me.
Q. Now, do you recall -- you say there was another gentleman, older Hispanic male with Mr. Montes. Can you tell the court approximately how old that person appeared to be?
A. In my opinion, that other Hispanic male was probably in his mid fifties.
Q. Now, did you make a note of the description of Mr. Montes at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you record that in your notes?
A. Yes, I did. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Montes was wearing a baseball cap. He had a -- what I would refer to as a grey kangaroo type jacket, that being a sweatshirt with a hood and a normally a -- a pouch in the front, and white runners.
Q. And what about the height and weight, did you make a notation of that?
A. I made a notation of it, Your Honour. My description was approximately five foot, nine inches, 160 pounds and probably in the early to mid-thirties.
Q. All right. Now, Constable Baker, did you conduct any search of Mr. Montes once you arrested him?
A. Yes, I did, Your Honour. From his right front jacket pocket, I obtained a quantity of money. One of the other members of the team had photocopied the money that Constable Birk was going to use to attempt to purchase narcotics.
Constable McDougall had a photocopy of those bills, which included the serial number. I compared the serial numbers of the bills that I had taken from Mr. Montes pocket. One of the twenty-dollar bills that I seized from the right pocket of Mr. Montes, matched the serial number to one of the serial numbers of the bills that had been pre-recorded and photocopied.
Q. Did you make a notation of that serial number at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you have that with you today?
A. I have it with me, although I can't remember the serial number.
Q. All right. Was the notation made at the time or shortly after you seized and compared this money to the photocopy?
A. Very shortly after.
Q. And had there been any alterations to your notes since the time of making?
A. No.
Q. I ask Your Honour for leave for the officer to refer to his notes.
The Court: Any objection, Ms. Reid?
Ms. Reid: No objection.
The Court: All right. Go ahead, please.
A. Your Honour, the twenty dollar bill that matched the photocopy was serial number E for echo SC5094275
Q. And do you recall how much money did you seize from the accused?
A. I don't know the exact -- it was approximately six or seven bills.
Q. And it was just the one bill, the serial number that you've given, that matched the buy money that had been given to Constable Birk prior to launching an operation; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, do you recall at the time you arrested the accused, you and Constable McDougall arrested the accused, do you recall what happened with the other person that was present, the older Hispanic male?
A. He had been initially arrested by Sergeant Williams and approximately one or two minutes later, he was released.
Q. All right. And what caused the release of this other person?
A. It was my recollection, Your Honour, that Constable Birk had driven by both Mr. Montes and the older Hispanic male and that Constable Birk indicated that the elderly Hispanic male was not involved.
Q. Now, to the best of your recollection, what happened after the older male was released?
A. I don't know where he went, but Mr. Montes was -- was chartered -- given his Charter rights by Constable McDougall and he was placed into a Vancouver City Police escort wagon and -- and to the best of my knowledge, taken to the Vancouver City Police jail.
Q. Where in the unit block of West Hastings did this occur?
A. Number 27, which is under the old Army & Navy building.
Q. And that's on the north side of the street; is that correct?
A. That is correct, it's on the north side of the street.
Q. And you were on the south side initially?
A. I was just observing what was going on from the south side of the street.
Q. Now, did you note any transaction of any kind between Constable Birk and Mr. Montes prior to getting the signal that a buy had taken place?
A. I can only say that they appeared to be talking to each other. That's all I can say.
Q. Okay. And do you recall approximately the time that this transaction occurred, or that the buy signal was given by Constable Birk?
A. Approximately 2119, or 9:19 p.m.
1097 words

I want to take you back to the 19th day of March

Idiomatic language

had dealings with

General vocabulary

Mario Montes

Numbers and names

black jacket

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

21:15 hours

Numbers and names

undercover operation

Specialized terminology/phraseology

I was waiting

Grammar

I ran across the street

Grammar

To the best of my recollection

Register

probably in the early to mid-thirties

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position

right front jacket pocket

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

which include the serial number

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position

I ask your Honour for leave for the officer to refer to his notes

Register

And it was just the one bill,( the serial number that you've given,) that matched the buy money that had been given to Constable Birk (prior to launching an operation); is that correct?

Syntax

Go ahead

Idiomatic language

do you recall what happened with the other person that was present ... ?

Syntax

given his Charter rights

Specialized terminology/phraseology

transaction

General vocabulary

Q. And tell us generally what you've done since February of 1993, what your duties consist of.
A. Basically my duties are the examination and comparison of firearms or cartridge case components back to an individual firearm. That comprises probably 80 per cent of our work. I also do tool mark identification, which is the identification of a particular tool to a mark made on a soft surface, such as, a window frame or a safe or what have you.
Q. Can you estimate the number of actual cases you've been involved in since you started working in this field in February of 1993?
A. I do approximately 140 cases a year. So I would guess, over a thousand.
Q. All right. Have you previously testified as an expert in the fields of firearms, ammunition and tool mark identification in courts?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And what courts and how many times have you testified as an expert in the field?
A. Approximately 200 times. I don't know the number offhand.
Q. Those are my questions with respect to Mr. Brown's expertise.
The Court: Mr. Darrow, any cross-examination on the qualifications?
Mr. Darrow: Just a few questions.
Q. As I understand what you've now said is that you also have studied wound identification?
A. Yes.
Q. And trajectory and rifle range type of studies that are associated with weaponry?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you, those are my questions.
The Court: The Crown seeks to tender Mr. Brown as an expert in the area of firearms and tool mark examination. I find that he is such, and as an expert, he can express expert evidence in that area.
Q. Mr. Brown, in this particular case, you had occasion to examine certain pieces of ammunition that were sent to you by Constable Sanders of the Prince William R.C.M.P. detachment?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Would you take Exhibit 7 first, Mr. Brown?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you examine that item? Did you receive it from Constable Sanders?
A. Yes. It bears my case number, date of receipt, which was October 20 and initials.
Q. All right. Exhibit 8, can you tell us if you also received that on the 20th of October?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what about Exhibit 9?
A. Exhibit 9 also bears my case number, date of receipt and initials.
Q. All right. And I understand you received those items personally from Constable Sanders the 20th of October?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. And you examined those items. Can you tell us what were the results of the examination?
A. Your Honour, may I look at my work notes?
The Court: Mr. Darrow, any problem?
Mr. Darrow: I have no problem.
The Court: Thank you.
A. Court Exhibit 7 was one lead fragment. Exhibit 8 was one portion of copper bullet jacket, and Exhibit 9 was one copper fragment.
Q. Dealing individually with Exhibit 7, which you've identified as a lead fragment, what can you tell us about that particular fragment?
A. It was the lead core. It appears to be the lead core of a bullet weighing 86.3 grains. There were no identification markings on the fragment. It's just a lead fragment.
Q. All right. Tell me what your examination of Exhibit 9, which you've identified as a copper fragment, revealed.
A. It's one copper fragment, consistent with a copper bullet jacket, and the total weight of 2.49 grains, relatively small, no identifiable marks on it either.
Q. All right. Let's turn then to your examination of Exhibit 8, the copper jacket. Can you tell us how did you examine the copper jacket? What did you do to examine that item?
A. I examined it microscopically and made several measurements of it.
Q. All right. With respect to Exhibit 8, the copper jacket, what, if anything did your microscopic examination of the copper jacket reveal?
A. I determined it was a 3.8 calibre bullet or portion of a copper bullet or a bullet jacket. It bears rifling characteristics of six lands and grooves with a right hand twist.
I then measured the lands and groove impressions on the bullet and basically fed the data into our database of rifling characteristics and I produced a list of probable types and makes of firearms that could have fired that bullet.
Q. I should have asked you, because you're using terms that I'm not familiar with and members of the jury may not be familiar with, you indicated the characteristics you noted on the copper jacket. Would you explain what each of those characteristics mean?
A. When a rifle is produced, there's a series of grooved cuts in the barrel. They spiral down the barrel, and between these grooves is a raised portion and that is known as the land.
Basically when a bullet is fired through a barrel, the bullet is embedded in the land and this causes the bullet to spin as it's forced down the barrel and aids in flight when the bullet leaves the barrel.
It's designed to spin the bullet to stabilize it in flight, and from these lands and grooves measurements and the calibre, we have a database of approximately 17,000 different firearms.
The database characterises firearms by calibre, lands and grooves, numbers and width of the lands and grooves, direction of twist, and from that, I produced a list of probable types of firearms.
Q. All right. When you say, "calibre", what does that mean?
A. The diameter of the bore of the firearm.
Q. Can you tell us in your opinion that the firearm that fired the copper jacket was a .30 calibre weapon?
A. It is a .30 calibre weapon or firearm.
Q. And were you able to match the copper jacket to a firearm?
A. No. I could not.
Q. That simply means that you were not given a firearm by the R.C.M.P. as a result of testing which you conclude was likely the probable source of that copper jacket.
A. No, I was not.
Q. All right. Now, I understand that you also examined various items of clothing.
A. That's correct.
Q. To try to determine, a possible range from which a firearm was fired?
A. That's correct.
Q. Which may have left particles or residue on the clothing, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Just before you view the clothing, would you tell us what tests were done to try to make this range determination and how you go about doing that test?
A. When a firearm is discharged at a target at a close range, not only the bullet strikes the target. There is partially burnt propellant that is also ejected from the muzzle, and at close range, this is deposited on the target in a pattern. The pattern varies with the distance. At very close range, it's a very dense pattern. It's very concentrated. The further you get away from the object, the propellant or partially burned propellant disperses so you get a larger pattern but it's less dense.
1182 Words

Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to the matter before the court, Dr. Robinson, I understand that on October the 19th, you performed an autopsy on the body of an individual identified as Robert Taylor?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you tell us what observations you made during the autopsy on Mr. Taylor's body?
A. Mr. Taylor had sustained a number of gunshot wounds. He had sustained one wound which passed through his left hand, entering the back of the left hand, exiting the palmar surface of the left hand, and then entering the left side of his chest, passing across towards the right side.
Q. Could you perhaps get up and demonstrate the -- the areas of the left hand and of the chest where you noticed the injuries which caused you to give the evidence you did... concerning this particular gunshot wound?
A. I would like to refer to my notes. I have pencil sketches made at the time of the examination, and a typed report dictated during the course of the examination.
The Court: Yes. You may refer to them, Doctor.
A. The gunshot wound that I've referred to entered the back of the hand, exited here on the palmar surface of the hand, entered the chest on the left side up at the top.
Q. All right.
A. The bullet then passed in a left to right direction and towards the back and came to rest in the back of the body underneath the shoulder blade.
Q. All right. So you would have observed four injuries: one to the back of the hand, one to the palm of the hand, one to the upper chest and one behind the back under the right arm?
A. There was no exit from this wound and the bullet was recovered.
Q. All right. And what exactly did you actually recover?
A. I recovered a deformed white metal projectile from behind the right shoulder-blade. I also recovered a separate copper jacket that I found inside the right chest.
Q. It's my understanding you turned over anything that you discovered, particularly foreign material in Mr. Taylor's body, to Constable Sanders of the R.C.M.P.
A. That's correct.
Q. All right.
A. The second gunshot wound was a wound which passed through the left forearm, entering this portion of the left forearm, exiting the left forearm, entering this side of the chest, passing across the chest, again left of the body to the right.
This one exited the right side of the chest towards the back, so there was no projectile recovered from this wound.
Q. Can you tell us about the two gunshots you've described so far, as they pass through the torso, not the various parts of the hand, you've indicated passed through the body from left to right.
Can you tell us the level of the trajectory in terms of whether it was level, whether it was downward, upward or what can you tell us in that respect?
A. The level of the wound I've just described, that's the one that exits through the torso, is essentially left to right on the horizontal, and the one that I described before that, the portion that goes through the torso, again left to right essentially on the horizontal. It's not going up or down in any measurable way.
Q. All right. And can you tell us any other finding that you made?
A. There was a third gunshot wound that passed through the chest. The entrance was in the back of the chest wall. The exit wound was in the front, and the bullet had passed straight through, back to front, a little bit downwards, not enough to measure, and a little bit towards the left.
Q. All right. As a result of your observations and things you've told us about, were you able in this case to determine a cause of death?
A. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds.
Q. What can you tell us, based on the various wounds and the trajectory of the body? Would you tell us in your opinion, the mechanism by which Mr. Taylor died, in the sense of what internal injuries he suffered and how the various shots you described caused his death?
A. The wounds that passed through the chest broke ribs, damaged lungs, and more importantly, shredded a two inch portion of the aorta. The aorta is the main artery in the body. It runs from the heart and delivers blood to the rest of the body.
Either of those two wounds in their own right, and certainly both together, would have produced very rapid death. The third gunshot wound, the one that passed through the chest, actually passed through and disrupted the heart, so that wound in itself had the potential of causing fairly immediate death.
However, the characteristics of the wound, on appearance, were somewhat different from the other two. The typical changes, the vital reaction that we see in the skin, particularly surrounding an entrance wound when a person is alive and with an intact circulation, were not present with this wound, so this wound had the characteristics of having been sustained either around the time of death, that is during the dying process, or after death.
Q. All right. I take it from your evidence is that whatever the order of the first two shots you describe, the ones that pass through the torso, in your opinion, the shot that went through the back and through the heart was third in order in time.
A. Correct. That is my opinion.
Q. All right. Now, in terms of sequencing, you've told us why you thought the shot to the back was third in order of time. Was it possible, from examining Mr. Taylor's body, to determine the order of the first two shots?
A. No. Either of the first two shots could have come first. The only thing that I can say about the first two shots, because they both shredded this large artery, the aorta, they had to have been sustained fairly quickly in terms of their time relationship to each other.
The minute that aorta was shredded by the first shot, Mr. Taylor was dying. He had effectively around nine to eleven seconds in which he could have still functioned or stayed upright.
That's the time it takes to utilise the oxygen that's already in the brain. Because the aorta is shredded, no circulation is now going to reach his brain, so no additional oxygen is going to be supplied to the brain to function. Given the fact that the trajectories are so close to each other, almost parallel as they go through the body, the shots had to be sustained in very rapid succession.
The evidence suggests that with the passing through the same organs and shredding the same portion of the aorta, Mr. Taylor was still in the same position when he sustained the second shot as he was when he sustained the first shot.
1171 words

Members of the jury, before you hear the evidence in this case I'm going to spend a few minutes explaining some basic principles that will be important for you in deciding this case. I also wish to explain a little further what I expect will happen during the course of this trial.
I shall begin with some general comments on the judge and jury system. This system is one of the oldest and most important of our legal traditions. It is a team system where you are the judges of the facts and I am the judge of the law. Each of you has been selected for this trial as a judge of this court with responsibility over the facts of this case. Just as when I was appointed to and undertook my duties I was sworn into office, you have taken an oath before you embarked on your task as a juror in this case. You are for this trial judges of this court with the exclusive responsibility for assessing and reaching conclusions concerning the evidence. By the same token, when I tell you what the law is, my view of the law must prevail. I am the exclusive judge of the law with exclusive responsibility for that for this trial. It would be wrong for you to decide this case on the basis of what you think the law is or what you think it should be.
There are two other basic principles which are fundamental to your role as jurors. They are the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence. The requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt means just what it says. No person accused of a criminal offence in Canada can be found guilty unless the Crown proves each and every part or element of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, our system of law requires that an accused person be presumed or considered to be innocent. Bryan David Paterson has no obligation to prove that he is not guilty or to explain the evidence offered by the Crown. The law presumes him to be innocent until you, as the triers of fact, decide otherwise. What does this mean to you as jurors? First, it means that the law requires you to decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty based on a careful consideration of all of the evidence you will hear in this courtroom.
Second, the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence mean that you must pay close attention to the evidence because you can only return a verdict of guilty if you are satisfied that each element of the offence charged is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left with a reasonable doubt after you consider all of the evidence you must give the benefit of that doubt to Bryan David Paterson and return a verdict of not guilty.
When I finish these remarks I will call upon Mr. Burger, the lawyer representing the Crown, to make his opening statement to you. Mr. Burger will tell you what he expects the evidence will be and what he expects the various Crown witnesses will say. The purpose of this opening statement is to make it easier for you to follow the evidence as the witnesses testify. It is important, indeed critical, that you understand that the opening statement of Crown counsel is not evidence because it is not given under oath by a witness from the witness box. Opening statements are given for a very specific reason. The evidence in a trial, such as this is not a narrative that unfolds chronologically and sequentially like a book or a TV play or a movie. Witnesses are called who testify as to what they know about a particular series of events. In many respects, it is like a jigsaw puzzle with witnesses testifying as to particular areas that they know about so that you can understand the whole picture. The opening given to you is so you can have an overview of that evidence so that when each piece comes forward you can fit it into the overall picture more easily. It's very important that you understand that what is said to you by counsel in opening statements is not evidence. The evidence will come primarily from witnesses who testify from the witness box and also from documents or exhibits placed before you.
Once Mr. Burger finishes his opening statement he will call the first Crown witness and will begin direct examination of that witness. Direct examination is a series of questions that give the witness an opportunity to tell you what he or she knows about the case. On direct examination counsel is not supposed to ask a question that suggests the answer which is known as leading questions. It is considered objectionable because it amounts to counsel giving the evidence while the witness merely agrees or disagrees.
After Mr. Burger asks all of his questions of a witness Mr. Darrow will have the opportunity to conduct cross-examination of the witness.
Like direct examination cross-examination is a series of questions. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the evidence given by the witness and to bring out facts that may assist the accused. Counsel may ask questions to test the truthfulness or ability of the witness to see things or to remember them or he may choose to ask no questions. Leading questions are allowed on cross-examination.
After the completion of any cross-examination by Mr. Darrow the witness may be re-examined by Mr. Burger on any new matters brought up during cross-examination that may require further explanation. This procedure will continue for each witness until you've heard all of the Crown witnesses.
Once the Crown finishes presenting its evidence, Mr. Darrow may present evidence on behalf of his client. If defence chooses to present witnesses we will follow the same procedure as we did for Crown witnesses; only this time Mr. Darrow would conduct direct examination and Mr. Burger will conduct cross-examination. Where an accused person decides to present evidence the Crown may have the right to call evidence in reply. If that happens it will be similar to the first part of the Crown case.
1049 words

judges of the facts

Specialized legal terminology/phraseology

Each of you has been selected

Grammar - passive form of verb

taken an oath

General vocabulary

before you embarked on your task as a juror in this case

Register - formal level of language

By the same token

Register - formal level of language

must prevail

Grammar - modal auxiliary + verb

(proof) beyond a reasonable doubt

Specialized legal terminology/phraseology

it means that the law requires you to decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty based on a careful consideration of all of the evidence you will hear in this courtroom.

Structure - long sentence with several clauses

until you, as the triers of facts, decide otherwise

Idiomatic language - collocation

Bryan David Paterson

Numbers and names

you must pay close attention

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

this is not a narrative that unfolds chronologically

Idiomatic language - not literal meaning of "unfold"

that unfolds chronologically and sequentially

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position - second of two adverbs and in the middle of the sentence

jigsaw puzzle

General vocabulary

It is very important that you understand that what is said to you by counsel in opening statements is not evidence.

Structure - long sentence; impersonal structure

Mr. Darrow

Numbers and names

any new matters

Words or phrases adding precision or emphasis

any new matters ... that may require further explanation

Words or phrases likely to be omitted due to their position - end of sentence

While you are listening to the evidence I urge you to pay close attention to what each witness says and how he or she behaves while giving evidence. As you know, if you consider it, people do not communicate simply by means of the words they choose. Often tone of voice, facial expression, pauses, manner, form a part of the communication of what you understand from that witness.
You must eventually decide which witnesses to believe and what evidence you accept. In exercising your role as the judges of the facts you need not accept or reject all of a witness's testimony. A witness's testimony is not a package that you accept or reject as a whole. The following guide-lines may help you to decide which evidence to believe and which to reject: Consider the witness's attitude and demeanour in the witness box, while remembering that some people may be nervous about testifying in court. Consider the ability and opportunity of the witness to observe the things referred to in his or her testimony. Assess the ability of the witness to express himself or herself, to understand the questions, and to answer those questions. Ask yourself if the witness has any interest in the outcome of this case.
From time to time during the trial as you discovered yesterday it may be necessary for you to retire to the jury room or to be excused so that counsel may argue points of law or points of evidence. I told you earlier about the division of functions. You are the judges of the facts, I am the judge of the law. At times I must make rulings so this trial can proceed properly before you. Please do not speculate on any reason why you are excused. All admissible and proper evidence will be put before you in this courtroom. If any documents or objects become part of the evidence in this trial you will have them with you in the jury room when you retire to consider your verdict.
During the course of the trial counsel may refer to a Preliminary Hearing. Before this trial began a Preliminary Hearing was held before a judge and a number of witnesses were examined under oath before that judge. Nothing is decided at that type of inquiry regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. Where any reference is made to the transcript of evidence at the Preliminary Hearing you should know that the transcript is the written record of the testimony of the witnesses who testified under oath before the judge.
I would like to say something to you about note-taking. Some of you may also wish to take notes during the trial. Indeed I see many of you have note pads with you. But I must remind you that your primary duty is to observe the witnesses when they testify so you will be able to understand the evidence and decide on the credibility or trustworthiness of each witness. The Clerk will keep a record of what each witness says. There is a procedure to read back the evidence to you if that becomes necessary, but your memory will be your only guide as to the manner in which each witness testifies. Therefore, you must be very careful and not get distracted from your primary duty if you decide to take notes.
There are three other general matters I wish to discuss with you. The first concerns confidentiality. People will naturally be interested in the trial and in your experiences as a juror. During the course of the trial you are not allowed to discuss this trial with anyone who is not on the jury. Do not discuss the evidence even among yourselves until you've heard all of the evidence on this case. Once the trial is over and you reach your verdict you may discuss what occurred in this courtroom with anyone you choose, however, you must never talk about what happened in the jury room. To do so is a criminal offence under our Criminal Code. That may sound a little peculiar to you, but that Criminal Code offence is there to protect the confidentiality of jury deliberations and each of you so that you may freely and carefully deliberate on the case.
The second matter concerns things you may hear outside the courtroom. Under our system of law an accused person can only be found guilty of an offence on the basis of evidence presented in open court. Things you see or hear in the media are not evidence and you must ignore them.
Finally, the same thing applies to any rumours that might circulate about this case. There is a good reason for the rule. You see, Bryan David Paterson has no opportunity to reply to rumours or accusations in the media. Indeed, nothing that occurs outside this courtroom must influence your deliberations.
Let me summarise what I've told you so far. You and I are working together as a team on this trial. You are the exclusive judges of the facts, I am the exclusive judge of the law. Throughout this trial you must presume that Bryan David Paterson is innocent, that he is not guilty of the charge against him. You may only return a verdict of guilty at the end of the trial if you are satisfied that the Crown proved each and every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. You should pay close attention to the testimony, attitude and behaviour of witnesses so that you can decide which evidence to believe or accept. You must avoid discussing the trial with anyone except your fellow jurors. You must avoid discussing the trial among yourselves until you have heard all of the evidence and you retire to the jury room to reach your verdict. You must never tell anyone what takes place in the jury room. In reaching your verdict you must consider only the evidence that was presented here in the courtroom. You must ignore rumours and accusations or coverage in the media. Finally, do not go out and collect evidence on your own. Counsel will present all the relevant and admissible evidence for you to consider here in this courtroom.
Before calling on Crown counsel I want to tell you something about the offence with which the Crown has charged Bryan David Paterson. I do this so you will better understand the evidence as it is presented.
Yesterday you heard the charges in the indictment read to Mr. Paterson and his plea of not guilty which he made to that charge. The indictment is one of the documents you will have in the jury room when you retire to consider your verdict. The Crown has charged Bryan David Paterson with the offence of second-degree murder causing the death of Robert Taylor on October 10th. Before you can return a guilty verdict you must be satisfied that the Crown has proven each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown must prove:
One: The identity of the accused as the offender.
Two: The time and place of the offence as it is set out in the indictment.
Three: That Bryan David Paterson caused the death of Robert Taylor.
Four: That Bryan David Paterson caused the death by means of an unlawful act.
Fifth: That Bryan David Paterson either meant to cause the death or meant to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless about whether or not it caused death.
1256 words

The accused, a native of Vietnam, was charged with sexual assault. In her statement to the police a few hours after the assault was alleged to have occurred, the complainant described her two assailants as "Asian", one being "fat" and "clean-shaven." The complainant later picked the accused's photo from a photo line-up. At trial, the accused appeared as slender with a moustache. The complainant identified him in court as the man she had previously described as clean-shaven and fat, but conceded on cross-examination that as he appeared in court he was not fat.
The defence called the accused's court-appointed interpreter to testify about the accused's weight at the time the attack was alleged to have taken place. Instead of translating his testimony in full as he gave it, as instructed by the trial judge and by defence counsel, the interpreter answered in English and only summarized his evidence in Vietnamese at the end of his direct examination and again after his cross-examination.
An exchange between the trial judge and the interpreter which followed his cross-examination appears not to have been interpreted at all. The accused was convicted. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the identification evidence was flawed and that deficiencies in the translation of the evidence deprived him of the right to be actually present at his trial, contrary to section 6.50 of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.
The main issue in this appeal is whether the failure to provide the accused with full and contemporaneous translation of all the evidence at trial constituted a breach of his right to an interpreter, as guaranteed by Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The right of an accused who does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings to obtain the assistance of an interpreter ensures that a person charged with a criminal offence hears the case against him or her and is given a full opportunity to answer it. This right is also intimately related to our basic notions of justice, including the appearance of fairness, and to our society's claim to be multicultural, expressed in part through Section 27 of the Charter. The magnitude of these interests favours a liberal interpretation and a principled application of the right to interpreter assistance under Section 14 of the Charter. The principle underlying all of the interests protected by the right to interpreter assistance under Section 14 is that of linguistic understanding.
In determining whether there has in fact been a breach of the Charter, it must be clear that the accused did not understand or speak the language being used in court and was thus actually in need of interpreter assistance. Where an interpreter was appointed and it is the quality of the interpretation provided that is being challenged, it is necessary to determine whether there has been a departure or deviation from what is considered adequate interpretation.
While the interpretation provided need not be perfect, it must be continuous, precise, impartial, competent and contemporaneous. The question should always be whether there is a possibility that the accused may not have understood a part of the proceedings by virtue of his or her difficulty with the language being used in court. Not every deviation from the protected standard of interpretation will constitute a violation of the Charter: The claimant must establish that the lapse in interpretation was in respect of the proceedings themselves, thereby involving the vital interests of the accused, and was not merely in respect of some collateral or extrinsic matter.
In determining whether the alleged deviation in interpretation was part of an occurrence which actually served in some way to "advance the case," one must consider whether there was an unfolding or development in the proceeding with respect to a point of procedure, evidence and/or law. Since Section 14 guarantees the right to interpreter assistance without qualification, it would be wrong to introduce into the assessment of whether the right had been breached any consideration of whether or not the accused actually suffered prejudice when being denied his or her Section 14 rights. The Charter in effect proclaims that being denied proper interpretation while the case is being advanced is in itself prejudicial and is a violation of Section 14.
There will be situations where the right to interpreter assistance cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. Where waiver is possible, the Crown must not only show that the waiver was clear and unequivocal and made with a knowledge and understanding of the right, but also that it was made personally by the accused or with defence counsel's assurance that the right and the effect on that right of waiving it were explained to the accused in language in which the accused is fully conversant.
Here the accused was in need of interpreter assistance throughout his trial, since he did not understand or speak English, and there is no doubt that the interpretation of the proceedings in which the interpreter was involved as a witness fell well below the guaranteed standard.
First, the accused did not receive continuous interpretation of all the evidence at his trial, since the questions posed to and answers given by the interpreter were condensed into two one-sentence summaries and the interpreter's exchange with the judge was not translated at all.
Second, the interpretation was not precise, as the summaries failed to convey everything that had been said and the first summary was incorrect in that it referred to something which had not in fact been said.
Third, while there is no reason to doubt the actual impartiality or objectivity of the interpretation provided in this case, the practice of having an interpreter act as both a witness and an interpreter is one which should be avoided in all but exceptional circumstances.
Finally, the timing of the interpretation was unsatisfactory, in that it should have occurred contemporaneously with the asking of questions and the giving of answers.
These lapses were not trivial in nature, but rather occurred at a point when the accused's vital interests were clearly involved and the case was thus being advanced. The problems with the interpretation arose during the testimony of a witness, and the evidence given by that witness covered a topic of considerable importance to the accused, namely, the issue of identification upon which his entire defence was built. There was no clear or unequivocal waiver by the accused of his right to interpretation.
There is also no indication that the accused personally understood the scope of his right to interpreter assistance and what he was giving up, and that the waiver was made by him personally. The curative provisos of the Criminal Code are not applicable when an infringement of the right to interpreter assistance is in issue. While denial of a Charter right constitutes an error of law, it is by its very constitutional nature a serious error of law, and certainly not one which, for Criminal Code purposes, can be characterized as minor or harmless, or as a "procedural irregularity".
Recourse should be had to Section 24(1) of the Charter, which allows a court to tailor the remedy to the particular circumstances of the violation. Since the violation of Section 14 of the Charter in this case occurred in the trial proper, the appropriate and just remedy under Section 24(1) is to quash the accused's conviction and order a new trial.