R. v. G. (R.M.)

R. v. G. (R.M.)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1996-10-03
Report
[1996] 3 SCR 362
Case number
24709
Judges
Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 24709
Decision Content
R. v. G. (R.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362
R.M.G. Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. G. (R.M.)
File No.: 24709.
1996: June 20; 1996: October 3.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Trial ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Sexual assault ‑‑ Defence denying assault and providing both reasons for possible fabrication of accusation and an alibi to some alleged incidents ‑‑ Trial judge charging jury only with issue of who perpetrated assault ‑‑ On objection, jury recharged on whether an assault occurred and then on the issue of who perpetrated the alleged assault ‑‑ Whether charge and recharge adequately dealt with theory of defence.
Trial ‑‑ Exhortation to jury ‑‑ Jury hung ‑‑ Trial judge urging jury to consider the public expense of a new trial, the inconvenience to all participants, the hardship to the accused and the complainant and suggesting that the minority might want to reconsider what the majority were saying ‑‑ Guilty verdict rendered short time later ‑‑ Whether exhortation objectionable or improper.
Trial ‑‑ Verdict ‑‑ Standard for setting aside verdict ‑‑ Whether standard with respect to exhortation should be any ground there was a miscarriage of justice (s. 686(1) (a)(iii)) or whether it should focus on whether an error of law was committed (s. 686(1) (a)(ii)) ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 686(1) (a)(ii), (iii).
The trial judge in a criminal trial dealing with the alleged sexual assault by a stepfather of his minor stepdaughter first charged the jury that the sole issue before them was whether the accused was the perpetrator of the alleged assault. Counsel for the defence objected to the charge to the jury. The defence had argued during trial that the alleged incidents had been fabricated or imagined by the complainant who saw her environment as being unduly strict and who wanted to live with her natural father. An alibi was also put forward suggesting that the accused was not present when some of the alleged incidents took place. The trial judge recharged the jury instructing them that they had first to determine whether a sexual assault had in fact occurred.
The jury deliberated and the next day sent the judge a message that they had reached an impasse. The trial judge recalled them and urged them to consider the public expense of a new trial, the inconvenience which a new trial would cause to all participants and the hardship to the accused and the complainant that a new trial would engender and suggested that the minority might want to reconsider what the majority were saying. The jury returned a guilty verdict 15 minutes later. The verdict was upheld on appeal.
The issues argued before this Court dealt with: (1) the adequacy of the charge and subsequent recharge as they dealt with the theory of the defence; (2) the appropriateness and propriety of the exhortation to the jury; and (3) the standard to be applied in setting aside the verdict.
Held (L’Heureux‑Dubé and Gonthier JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed.
Per Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.: In the course of giving directions to a jury, the trial judge must outline the defence theory and refer the jury to its essential elements in a way that will ensure the jury’s proper appreciation of the evidence. The original charge clearly took away the defence as it assumed that the sexual assault had occurred. The test for review in a recharge must be whether there is a reasonable possibility that the trial judge’s erroneous instruction may have misled the jury. Here, the recharge was sufficient to rectify the error committed in the original charge.
The sole task of a jury is to reach a verdict based exclusively on the evidence presented. The sturdy independence of jurors may be overcome and unanimity compelled by a judge’s suggesting irrelevant factors for consideration or by a judge’s exerting unwarranted pressure. In those circumstances, the verdict may no longer be based on a reasoned approach to the evidence. The exhortation given to an apparently deadlocked jury must therefore be delicately balanced and carefully crafted and must encourage the jurors to endeavour to reach a verdict by reasoning together. The purpose of the exhortation is to assist the process of deliberation, not to influence the content of the jury’s discussion. To suggest that a deadlocked jury take into account factors such as the expense, and the inconvenience occasioned by a new trial, or the hardship caused to the participants when a trial is left unresolved, or to consider carefully only the position of the majority and not the minority, introduces pressures and factors which are completely irrelevant to the jurors’ duties and therefore inappropriate in an exhortation.
The following principles can be derived from the jurisprudence. (1) Pursuant to their oath, jurors must endeavour to render a verdict based upon the evidence which has been adduced before them. (2) The strength and genius of trial by jury is that members of the community reason together to reach a verdict based solely upon the evidence. (3) A jury must therefore be allowed to deliberate without any form of pressure being imposed upon them. (4) If a jury has apparently reached an impasse, any exhortation should avoid introducing factors which are extraneous and irrelevant to the task of reaching a verdict, and should not encourage a juror, by referring to these factors, to abandon an honestly held view of the evidence. The exhortation must not interfere with the right of jurors to deliberate in complete freedom uninfluenced by extraneous pressure. (5) A juror should not be encouraged or exhorted to change his or her mind simply for the sake of conformity. (6) A deadline for reaching a verdict should not be imposed and a jury should never be rushed into returning a verdict.
The reference to expense and inconvenience should not have been referred to in the exhortation. It introduced an irrelevant, extraneous factor into the jury’s deliberations and was coercive in that it would make the minority feel that they had to agree with the majority. This factor is a significant one and would influence a juror to disregard the oath and arrive at a verdict based on factors other than the evidence produced during the trial. The error could not be cured and was sufficient in itself to warrant a new trial. Other aspects of this exhortation lead to the same result.
The reference to a possible benefit accruing to the accused and witnesses if a verdict could be reached has been correctly disapproved. With respect to the complainant, such a reference may encourage what could be an inappropriate sympathetic influence into the reasoning process of the jurors, particularly at this stage of the proceedings. With regard to the accused, the reference may be misleading since a guilty verdict as a result of the exhortation is not in the accused’s best interest.
The mere suggestion that a juror should listen to fellow jurors may not be, in itself, improper. No suggestion should be made, however, that a juror should abandon his or her honestly held view in favour of the majority position. Such a direction could well be construed as an encouragement to the dissentient minority to fall in with the majority while continuing to disagree with their views. A trial judge would better avoid putting the situation in confrontational terms of opposing sides and instead appeal to the individual jurors to once again reason together. Any such a suggestion must state that both sides should listen to each other and consider the opinions of others.
The twice repeated reminder by the trial judge that the jurors should not betray their oath may have reduced the effect of the erroneous exhortation. Nonetheless, the cumulative effect of the errors would have had a coercive effect upon the jurors. The speed with which the jury reached its verdict after the exhortation clearly indicated the significance the jury attached to the trial judge’s exhortation and demonstrated a coercive impact on the minority who had obviously been unmoved by the majority’s arguments.
Errors of law made in the course of an exhortation should be treated no differently from errors committed in any other part of the instructions to the jury, or during the trial. Not every improper reference in an exhortation will lead to a new trial. Instead, the exhortation must be viewed as a whole and in the context of the proceedings. The length of the deliberations, the nature of the question asked by the jury, and the length of the deliberations following the exhortation are all relevant. In considering all of these factors, an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the impugned statements either coerced the jury or interfered with its right to deliberate in complete freedom from extraneous considerations or pressures, or caused a juror to concur with a view that he or she did not truly hold. A suggested form that an exhortation might take was set out.
The trial judge clearly committed errors of law and the accused is entitled to a new trial. Since the exhortation may have improperly coerced the jury to reach a verdict, the verdict would not necessarily have been the same absent the error. The curative provision of s. 686(1) (b)(iii) could therefore not be applied.
Per L’Heureux‑Dubé and Gonthier JJ. (dissenting): The goal of an exhortation should be to encourage the jurors, if at all possible, to strive to reach an agreement. Jurors should not take into consideration extraneous factors in rendering their judgment and a trial judge should not ask them to. The jury, and the jury alone, is to come to a verdict based solely on the strength of the evidence.
The appellate courts should treat an exhortation in a manner similar to that for reviewing charges to the jury and should refrain from interfering absent a clear error bringing the validity of the verdict into question. An exhortation is not an inflexible blueprint but rather must be tailored to a particular jury. Its nature will depend on a number of factors, including the length and complexity of the trial and the events that warranted the trial judge’s attention. The effect of the entire exhortation, as opposed to one particular reference, should be considered in determining whether an exhortation was coercive.
The reference to the expense of trials, even when noted as not being a particularly important factor, is generally best avoided. References of this sort might suggest that the jury should consider something other than the evidence before it. Such reference is not automatically an error of law and whether it is fatal depends very much upon the circumstances. It is not prima facie coercive in that it is generally neutral and does not ask the jury to convict.
With regard to the reference that a verdict might be of benefit to both the accused and to the complainant, it was inconsequential and in the middle of a lengthy exhortation. It could not be said to have influenced the jury’s deliberative process. This factor has only been found to prejudice the jury’s deliberative process when it has been unduly highlighted or repeated in such a way as to cause sympathy for one of the parties.
The final impugned reference regarded the trial judge’s instructions that the minority should listen to the majority. An accused’s fair trial interest is only compromised when the trial judge’s instruction indicates or implies that the minority should conform its view to that of the majority. Every reference to the minority will not achieve this effect. Each statement should be considered in its proper context and should be examined for its potential effect. Here, the trial judge did not tell the minority that they must revise their decision and any confusion was corrected when the trial judge twice warned the jurors not to abandon their oath and reminded them that the jury need not agree.
The speed with which the jury reached its verdict was not demonstrative of a coercive impact on the minority. This factor is largely dependent upon the circumstances of each case. The language of an exhortation, where it is not inherently coercive, does not become so merely because an early verdict was returned. There is also the alternative possibility that the exhortation had the desired effect.
Not every improper reference in an exhortation should be treated as an error of law. The reference must be examined in the context in which it was made in order to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the impugned statements either coerced the jury or interfered with its right to deliberate in freedom from extraneous considerations. Any errors here were not likely to coerce members of the jury to disregard their oath.
A model exhortation would be desirable to deal with the common occurrence of a jury’s being deadlocked, absent other problems. Trial judges must feel free to depart from this formula in situations which require it.
Cases Cited
By Cory J.
Considered: R. v. Sims, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 858; Walhein (1952), 36 Cr. App. R. 167; Shoukatallie v. The Queen, [1962] A.C. 81; Watson (1988), 87 Cr. App. R. 1; R. v. Accused, [1988] 2 N.Z.L.R. 46; R. v. Littlejohn (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 161; R. v. Alkerton (1992), 72 C.C.C. (3d) 184, aff’d [1993] 1 S.C.R. 468; referred to: Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495; Colpitts v. The Queen, [1965] S.C.R. 739; R. v. Brydon, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; Penn and Mead’s Case (1670), 6 How. St. Tr. 951; Davey (1960), 45 Cr. App. R. 11; Isequilla (1974), 60 Cr. App. R. 52; R. v. Palmer, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 402; R. v. Isaac (1979), 48 C.C.C. (2d) 481; R. v. Nielsen and Stolar (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 39; Black v. The Queen (1993), 179 C.L.R. 44; R. v. R. (R.) (1994), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 193; R. v. Flesh (No. 2) (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 194.
By L’Heureux‑Dubé J. (dissenting)
R. v. Littlejohn (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 161; R. v. Robinson, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; R. v. Brydon, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; R. v. Halliday (1992), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 481; Watson (1988), 87 Cr. App. R. 1; Buono (1992), 95 Cr. App. R. 338; R. v. Tennant, [1989] 2 N.Z.L.R. 271; R. v. Isaac (1979), 48 C.C.C. (2d) 481; R. v. Jackson, unreported, C.A., Crim. Div. (Eng.), March 9, 1988; R. v. Accused, [1988] 2 N.Z.L.R. 46; R. v. Alkerton (1992), 72 C.C.C. (3d) 184; R. v. R. (R.) (1994), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 193; Shoukatallie v. The Queen, [1962] A.C. 81; R. v. Palmer, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 402; R. v. Nielsen and Stolar (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 39; R. v. Sims, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 858.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 686(1) (a)(ii), (iii), (b)(iii).
Criminal Justice Act 1967 (U.K.), 1967, c. 80, s. 1.
Authors Cited
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989, “exhort”.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1995), 57 B.C.A.C. 81, 94 W.A.C. 81, dismissing an appeal from conviction by Dohm J. sitting with jury. Appeal allowed, L’Heureux‑Dubé and Gonthier JJ. dissenting.
David M. Rosenberg, for the appellant.
Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent.
//Cory J.//
The judgment of Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. was delivered by
1 Cory J. -- What instructions should be given by the trial judge when the jury indicates that it is deadlocked? That is the important and paramount question that must be resolved in this appeal.
Factual Background
2 The appellant was charged with sexually assaulting his stepdaughter between April of 1991 and November of 1992 when she was 12 years old. The complainant testified that there were several acts of touching and four or five incidents of forced intercourse which occurred during that time. She was examined by a physician nine days after the last incident. The doctor gave evidence that there was a significant attenuation of the complainant’s hymen which strongly indicated that there had been penetration of the vagina on several occasions. He found no indications of violence such as bruising or abrasions, although he did state that any signs of a violent assault might have healed in the intervening time. The defence position was that the situation observed by the doctor could have been caused by early sexual experimentation, and that it was not the result of sexual assaults.
3 There was testimony which indicated that the complainant believed that she was unduly confined in an overly strict environment and that she wished to leave and live with her natural father. The appellant’s defence was that the complainant either fabricated or imagined the incidents of sexual assault in order to get away from what she considered to be an unsatisfactory home. There was, as well, evidence put forward of an alibi which suggested that the appellant was not present when some of the alleged incidents took place.
4 During his charge to the jury, the trial judge indicated that the sexual assault had been established and that the sole issue for the jury was whether the appellant was the perpetrator. An objection to this direction was taken by counsel for the defence which was acceded to by the trial judge. He recharged the jury and instructed them that they had to determine whether a sexual assault had in fact occurred.
5 When the recharge was completed, the jury began its deliberations at approximately 2:20 p.m. of the first afternoon. Apart from the time taken for dinner, they continued their deliberations until 9:15 that evening. The following morning, the jury began again to consider their verdict at 9:15 a.m. but shortly before 10:00 a.m. they sent a message to the trial judge indicating that they had arrived at an impasse. The trial judge recalled the jury and urged them to consider the public expense of a new trial, the inconvenience which that would cause to all participants, the hardship to the accused and the complainant that this would engender and suggested that the minority might want to reconsider what the majority were saying. Only 15 minutes later, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. The appeal taken was dismissed unanimously by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Decision Below
Court of Appeal of British Columbia (per McEachern C.J. for the Court) (1995), 57 B.C.A.C. 81, 94 W.A.C. 81
6 McEachern C.J. agreed with counsel for the appellant that the trial judge’s original charge failed to outline adequately the defence position that the complainant had fabricated her evidence and that she had not been assaulted. He was of the view, at para. 10, that there was at least “some arguable basis for the defence position that no sexual assault had been proven”. In his opinion, at para. 13, this error put the case “close to the line”. However, he concluded that the recharge fairly and adequately instructed the jury on the issue with the result that this error was not a ground for a new trial.
7 McEachern C.J. then considered the exhortation. He noted that it included a number of passages that had been judicially disapproved. These included the reference that the jury should consider the public expense involved in a new trial; the suggestion that a verdict might benefit the accused and the suggestion that the minority consider what the majority were saying. However, he found that the trial judge’s direction that the jurors were not to betray their oath and that they did not have to agree was sufficient to remedy the defects. He expressed the opinion that the exhortation considered as a whole was not unfavourable to the appellant. Nor, in his opinion, would it have coerced any members of the jury to reach an improper verdict. Essentially, he was of the view that although there were errors in the exhortation, it was saved by the trial judge’s reminder to the jury of their oath and the statement made on two occasions that he was not asking them to betray their oath.
Analysis
Issues
8 Three issues were argued on this appeal.
1. Did the charge and subsequent recharge to the jury adequately deal with the theory of the defence?
2. Was the exhortation to the jury objectionable or improper?
3. Did the Court of Appeal err in the standard it applied for setting aside the verdict?
The Failure to Outline the Position of the Defence
9 In the course of giving directions to a jury, it is essential that the trial judge outline for them the theory or position of the defence and refer the jury to the essential elements bearing on that defence in such a way that it will ensure the jury’s proper appreciation of the evidence. See Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495; Colpitts v. The Queen, [1965] S.C.R. 739. The original charge of the trial judge very clearly took away the defence put forward that the complainant had not been sexually assaulted at all and that she had fabricated the entire story. It assumed that the sexual assault had occurred, and left the jury to decide only whether the assailant was the appellant or whether the assault was occasioned by some unidentified person. Like McEachern C.J., I am of the view that this error might have been fatal had it not been adequately corrected in the recharge.
10 The approach that should be taken by appellate courts in reviewing a recharge has recently been set out in R. v. Brydon, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253. In that case, Lamer C.J., writing for the Court, stated at p. 266 that the test for review must be whether “there is a reasonable possibility that the trial judge’s erroneous instruction may have misled the jury”. Here the trial judge, in his recharge, clearly told the jury that while his earlier comments had only been a suggestion on his part, he was in error in putting the issue in those terms. He specifically instructed the jury to disregard his earlier suggestion that a sexual assault had been proven and told them that it was for them to determine whether a sexual assault had in fact taken place. Thus the jury would have understood that they had first to decide whether a sexual assault had occurred and only if satisfied on that point would they then go on to determine whether the Crown had satisfied them that the appellant was responsible for the assault. The recharge was, in my opinion, sufficient to rectify the error committed in the original charge. It follows that this ground of appeal cannot be accepted.
The Jury Exhortation Used in this Case and the Objection Taken to it
11 When the jury informed the trial judge that they were at an impasse, he instructed or exhorted them in these words:
Each of these trials take [sic] a piece out of counsel and a piece out of the judge. They are serious matters. They are serious for all those concerned, not the least of which is the accused.
These trials are expensive to operate in their conduct. That is not a particular [sic] important ingredient for trying to come to a decision in this matter, but it is a factor for your consideration.
More importantly, in all likelihood, if you are unable to arrive at a verdict, there will be another trial. That is not in my hands. That’s up to the Crown, and maybe not Mr. McKimm [Crown counsel] either. But in all likelihood there would be another trial.
If that takes place, the accused would have to go through this again as would the witnesses, not the least of which is the young lady. It would not be easy for anybody to have to redo what we have done since Monday of this week.
You are members of the jury in as good a position as any other twelve persons who would be hearing this case to render verdicts in this case.
You took an oath when you commenced your duties in this case, and I am by no means asking you to betray that oath, but perhaps the minority of you might want to reconsider what the majority are saying. But again, I remind you -- I emphasize -- that I am not asking you to betray your oath. There are occasions when twelve people cannot decide. This may be one of them. There will be no aspersions cast on you people for not [sic] able to do so.
12 Counsel for the appellant submitted that the following three errors are apparent in these instructions. First, there is the improper and unnecessary reference to public expense and inconvenience. The second was the reference to the benefit to all, including the accused, of a verdict being reached. The last but certainly not the least important was the error of the trial judge in suggesting that the minority reconsider what the majority was saying without any reference or suggestion that the majority might equally consider what the minority was putting forward.
The Significance and the Importance of the Jury System in Canada
13 The jury system is clearly a significant factor in many democratic regimes. This is emphatically true in Canada. It is extremely important to our democratic society that jurors as representatives of their community may make the decision as to the guilt or innocence of the accused before the court based solely on the evidence presented to them. There is a centuries-old tradition of juries reaching fair and courageous verdicts. That tradition has taken root and been so well and fearlessly maintained that it has flourished in this country. Our courts have very properly stressed the importance of jury verdicts and the deference that must be shown to those decisions. Today, as in the past, great reliance has been placed upon those decisions. That I think flows from the public awareness that 12 members of the community have worked together to reach a unanimous verdict.
14 In reaching a verdict, jurors have heeded the wisdom of the prophet Isaiah whose advocacy of a reasoned approach to solving problems has echoed through the ages in the moving and memorable words “Come now, and let us reason together . . .”: Isaiah 1:18. Of course, it is the great strength and virtue of the jury system that members of the community have indeed come together and reasoned together in order to reach their unanimous verdict. It is truly a magnificent system for reaching difficult decisions in criminal cases. It has proven itself in the centuries past and continues to do so today. Yet, this system is fragile.
15 If the process is subjected to unwarranted pressures, or to unnecessary distractions, the delicate reasoning process may be thwarted. The sole task of a jury is to reach a verdict based exclusively on the evidence presented. The sturdy independence of jurors may be overcome and unanimity compelled by a judge’s suggestion that irrelevant factors be considered or by the judge’s exerting unwarranted pressure. In those circumstances, the verdict may no longer be based on a reasoned approach to the evidence. It follows that the instructions given to an apparently deadlocked jury must be delicately balanced and carefully crafted. If they are not, the jury system as a bulwark of democracy will all too easily be breached. The importance and significance of the instructions or exhortation to an apparently deadlocked jury cannot be overemphasized. The jurors at this stage are tired, probably frustrated and certainly disgruntled. They have given so much of their time and laboured so hard with the difficult issues that they are entitled to a careful and balanced instruction.
The Nature and Aim of an Exhortation
16 The instructions given to the jury at this stage have been referred to as the exhortation. According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary (7th ed. 1989), “exhort” means to “admonish earnestly; urge (person to do, to a course of action)”. What an exhortation must do is encourage the jurors to endeavour to reach a verdict by reasoning together. The task of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of the evidence which they have heard. Irrelevant and extraneous circumstances should not be introduced into a task which is already fraught with difficulties. To suggest that a deadlocked jury take into account factors such as the expense, and the inconvenience occasioned by a new trial, or the hardship caused to the participants when a trial is left unresolved, or to consider carefully only the position of the majority and not the minority, introduces pressures and factors which are completely irrelevant to their duties as jurors and are therefore inappropriate in an exhortation.
17 The purpose of a jury exhortation was eloquently expressed by McLachlin J. in R. v. Sims, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 858. She stated at p. 865:
The purpose of an exhortation is to impress on the jury the need to listen to each other and consider each other’s views in order to avoid disagreement based on fixed, inflexible perceptions of the evidence that one or other of them may have developed. The purpose of an exhortation is not to suggest to the jury that one view of the evidence may be preferable to another, or that this inference as opposed to that inference should be drawn from the evidence. To put it another way, the focus of the exhortation is the process of deliberation which is the genius of the jury system. An essential part of that process is listening to and considering the views of others. As a result of this process, individual views are modified, so that the verdict represents more than a mere vote; it represents the considered view of the jurors after having listened to and reflected upon each other’s thoughts. It is on that process that the exhortation should focus.
In other words, the goal of an exhortation is to assist the process of deliberation as opposed to influencing the content of the jury’s discussion. With the importance of the exhortation in mind, let us approach the issue by first reviewing the cases from various jurisdictions which have considered this very problem.
A Review of the Cases Dealing with Jury Exhortations
18 There has always been a strong judicial urge to assist, or indeed in the early days to compel, a jury to reach a verdict. Centuries ago jurors were instructed that they must agree and could not be discharged until they did so. A jury was sequestered in the jury room without food, drink or heat until they reached a verdict. See Penn and Mead’s Case (1670), 6 Howell’s State Trials 951, at pp. 962-966. This dictatorial approach has moderated over the years perhaps owing as much to the sturdy independence of jurors as to the increasing sensitivity of judges. Today, it is beyond question that no measure of coercion will be acceptable.
The United Kingdom
19 In England, an exhortation to a jury was referred to for many years as a Walhein direction. It was in Walhein (1952), 36 Cr. App. R. 167, a case arising from a charge of conspiracy to utter forged notes, that the Court of Criminal Appeal approved the following instructions at p. 168:
You are a body of 12 men. Each of you has taken an oath to return a true verdict according to the evidence, but, of course, you have a duty not only as individuals, but collectively. No one must be false to that oath, but in order to return a collective verdict, the verdict of you all, there must necessarily be argument, and a certain amount of give and take and adjustment of views within the scope of the oath you have taken, and it makes for great public inconvenience and expense if jurors cannot agree owing to the unwillingness of one of their number to listen to the arguments of the rest. Having said that, I can say no more. If you disagree in your verdict in relation to one or other of these men, you must say so.
20 In reviewing this instruction Lord Goddard observed, at p. 168, that jurors “may talk the matter over, subordinate their views to those of the majority and concur in the verdict”. However, this direction was later rejected on the grounds that its use might coerce juries by introducing irrelevant considerations: see Davey (1960), 45 Cr. App. R. 11; Isequilla (1974), 60 Cr. App. R. 52.
21 Later the comments of Lord Denning in Shoukatallie v. The Queen, [1962] A.C. 81 (P.C.), were considered by Canadian courts to be the model for an exhortation direction. In that case the accused faced the charge of murder. Lord Denning, at p. 91, set out the manner in which an exhortation should be given in these words:
[The trial judge] reminds [the jury] that it is most important that they should agree if it is possible to do so: that, with a view to agreeing, they must inevitably take differing views into account; that if any member should find himself in a small minority and disposed to differ from the rest, he should consider the matter carefully, weigh the reasons for and against his view, and remember that he may be wrong; that if, on so doing, he can honestly bring himself to come to a different view and thus to concur in the view of the majority, he should do so, but if he cannot do so, consistently with the oath he has taken, and he cannot bring the others round to his point of view, then it is his duty to differ, and for want of agreement, there will be no verdict.
This form of direction was followed in a number of cases: see R. v. Palmer, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 402 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Littlejohn (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 161 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Isaac (1979), 48 C.C.C. (2d) 481 (Y.T.C.A.); R. v. Nielsen and Stolar (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 39 (Man. C.A.).
22 However, Lord Denning’s suggested directions put forward in Shoukatallie, supra, were ultimately replaced by the English Court of Criminal Appeal in Watson (1988), 87 Cr. App. R. 1. That decision was rendered subsequent to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, 1967 (U.K.), c. 80. Section 1 of that Act introduced the concept of a majority verdict, but provided that the jury must have had not less than two hours of deliberation before a majority verdict, reached by at least 10 members of the jury, could be accepted. In the Watson case, the court stressed the importance of allowing the jury to deliberate without imposing any form of pressure upon it. The Walhein direction was criticized for introducing extraneous considerations such as time and expense, and for including suggestions about the possible benefit to the accused if the jury were to reach a unanimous verdict.
New Zealand
23 The New Zealand Court of Appeal undertook a very careful and extensive review of the law pertaining to exhortations in R. v. Accused, [1988] 2 N.Z.L.R. 46. In that case the accused was charged with sexual violation by rape. The decisions in Shoukatallie, supra, Watson, supra, and the Canadian decisions including Littlejohn, supra, were considered. The New Zealand court then set out what it considered to be the three fundamental factors which must be taken into consideration in the drafting of an acceptable exhortation. Namely, (1) the jurors have a responsibility to accept their duty of endeavouring to give a verdict according to the evidence; (2) that collective deliberation and exchange of views is the essence of the jury system; and (3) that no juror should change his or her mind merely for the sake of conformity or out of submission to pressure by the other jurors.
Canada
24 Canadian courts have also struggled with the problem of the appropriate direction which ought to be given to a jury which appears to be deadlocked. In Littlejohn, supra, Martin J.A., on behalf of the Ontario Court of Appeal, observed at p. 168 that in exhorting a jury, “the trial Judge must avoid language which is coercive, and which constitutes an interference with the right of the jury to deliberate in complete freedom uninfluenced by extraneous pressures”. He held, at p. 168, that in determining what was coercive and what was permissible, “the entire sequence of events leading up to the direction which is assailed, must be considered”.
25 The reasoning in Littlejohn, supra, was followed in R. v. Alkerton (1992), 72 C.C.C. (3d) 184, affirmed [1993] 1 S.C.R. 468. In that decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal once again noted that the exhortation should not be given in a manner which tempts a juror to abandon an honestly held view of the evidence by a reference to extraneous matters. It was emphasized that where deadlock occurs a juror should not be encouraged to avoid the oath sworn to bring in an honest verdict based upon the evidence.
Principles to be Derived From These Cases
26 The following principles can, I believe, be derived from these cases. (1) Pursuant to their oath, jurors must endeavour to render a verdict based upon the evidence which has been adduced before them. (2) The strength and genius of trial by jury is that members of the community reason together to reach a verdict based solely upon the evidence. (3) It follows from the last principle that it is important to allow a jury to deliberate without imposing any form of pressure upon them. (4) If a jury has apparently reached an impasse, any exhortation given should avoid introducing factors which are extraneous and irrelevant to the task of reaching a verdict, and should not encourage a juror, by reference to extraneous considerations or by exerting unwarranted pressures, to abandon an honestly held view of the evidence. The exhortation must not interfere with the right of jurors to deliberate in complete freedom uninfluenced by extraneous pressure. (5) It follows that a juror should not be encouraged or exhorted to change his or her mind simply for the sake of conformity. (6) A deadline for reaching a verdict should not be imposed and a jury should never be rushed into returning a verdict.
Application of the Principles to this Case
I. Reference to Public Expense and Inconvenience
27 It will be remembered that during the exhortation given in this case, the following references to public expense appeared:
Each of these trials take [sic] a piece out of counsel and a piece out of the judge. They are serious matters. They are serious for all those concerned, not the least of which is the accused.
These trials are expensive to operate in their conduct. That is not a particular [sic] important ingredient for trying to come to a decision in this matter, but it is a factor for your consideration.
More importantly, in all likelihood, if you are unable to arrive at a verdict, there will be another trial. That is not in my hands. That’s up to the Crown, and maybe not Mr. McKimm [Crown counsel] either. But in all likelihood there would be another trial.
28 In the Watson case when disapproving the Walhein direction, the Criminal Court of Appeal held that a reference to the expense and inconvenience of a new trial had an undesirable coercive effect and created a potent incentive for the minority to agree with the majority. Without deciding that such a direction would always constitute a form of coercion, the English Court of Appeal put its position in this way at p. 7:
One starts from the proposition that a jury must be free to deliberate without any form of pressure being imposed upon them, whether by way of promise or of threat or otherwise. They must not be made to feel that it is incumbent upon them to express agreement with a view they do not truly hold simply because it might be inconvenient or tiresome or expensive for the prosecution, the defendant, the victim or the public in general if they do not do so.
29 The New Zealand Court of Appeal was even more emphatic in the opinion it expressed in Accused, supra. It took the position that such a reference should be avoided. This view was expressed in these words at p. 58:
. . . a reference to great public inconvenience and expense, even when coupled as in Walhein with “if jurors cannot agree owing