[90] For my part, the key goal of peremptory challenges, “to foster confidence within the jury trial course of”:
, at para. 59, was undermined to such a level as to create the looks of unfairness. The extent of the imbalance created and the importance of the improprieties have so tainted the looks of a good course of as to quantity to a miscarriage of justice and lead affordable folks to consider that the looks of justice has been undermine
What was significantly troubling was a memo, launched by the Crown Legal professional of the Area in Barrie stating:
Please verify the connected jury panel lists, for the individuals listed in your locality, and advise if any have prison information. We aren’t capable of present birthdates.
It could be useful if feedback and particulars could possibly be made regarding any disreputable particular person we’d not need as a juror. All we will ask is that you simply do your greatest contemplating the lack of awareness accessible to us. …
This memo was then copied to the opposite prosecutor on this case. The checks included
…not solely CPIC prison report checks, but additionally searches of databases for all police contact with the potential jurors, together with Freeway Site visitors Act violations (additionally known as M.T.O. information), and different police incidence stories of encounters the police had with residents, whether or not or not investigative. The knowledge obtained stuffed a number of binders and was offered to the Crown along with annotated jury lists.”
What was uncovered in police searches:
These checks led to in a single panel alone to 500 to 600 pages of data obtained from numerous police databases. The Courtroom discovered that this included handwritten feedback on a few of the pages, feedback equivalent to “Flag, Hates police”, “No”, and “No…MTO.” Past that, additional notes included: “okay”, “If born in 1952 – has psychological points”, “Complainant”, “No” and “Grievance in home assault 2005.” None of this data was disclosed to the defence, however that the Crown on attraction conceded it should have finished so.
The problem means of jury choice should be honest.
In extrapolating their reasoning in granting a brand new trial, the Courtroom of Enchantment reminded us of the significance of the problem course of for juries in prison circumstances in reaching each a good trial and one that’s perceived to be honest by the affordable member of the general public. As acknowledged at paragraph 60:
[60] Put in a different way, disruptions within the peremptory problem course of is not going to lead to a jury or jurors that may be proven to be partial. As a substitute, it can impair one or different celebration’s potential to style a jury that the celebration, subjectively, considers to be neutral… “[a]n vital a part of the jury choice course of is the proper of each the Crown and the defence to train peremptory challenges … The justification for permitting peremptory challenges is that they foster confidence within the jury trial course of.”
In concluding a brand new trial was vital, the Courtroom didn’t go as far as to order prices as requested by the defence. The Courtroom discovered that “the appellant has not, nevertheless, proven that there was any malicious intent or intentional breaches by the trial Crowns. Regardless of the seriousness of the breaches, I take into account ordering a brand new trial to be an enough treatment and don’t view this case to be one by which prices should be awarded to self-discipline and discourage “flagrant and unjustified” or “egregious” situations of non-disclosure. See R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575, and R. v. Tiffin, 2008 ONCA 306, 90 O.R. (3d) 575.”
