|
Criminal - Jury - Secrecy. R. v. Thompson
In R. v. Thompson (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered an issue of jury secrecy, here involving jury notes passed to the judge:[5] Relying on R. v. Pan, 2001 SCC 42, the trial judge declined to hold an inquiry into the allegations of racism raised in the notes. He found that the juror secrecy rule precluded him from providing these notes to the parties because the notes disclosed deliberations. The trial judge determined the notes were entirely about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced, and votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations and consequently sealed them in accordance with the jury secrecy rule set out in Pan.
....
[8] Thompson and Hoo-Hing have appealed their convictions. The appellants now seek to lift or vary the sealing order made by the trial judge to allow appeal counsel to review the notes, copy them and use them to prepare for the appeal.
....
[13] We are not persuaded that the appellants have shown that unsealing the notes would be of any meaningful assistance to their appeal or that the continued sealing of the notes causes them prejudice. Much of the argument advanced by the appellants on this motion drifts into the merits of the appeal by suggesting that the trial judge erred in failing to hold an inquiry and by sealing the notes. In essence, the issue on this motion is whether the appellants can advance their arguments on appeal without access to the sealed notes. In our view, they can.
[14] Counsel for Hoo-Hing has filed a factum on the appeal plainly setting out the arguments in relation to the trial judge’s handling of the juror notes and his failure to hold an inquiry. Thompson’s counsel has not yet filed a factum but will likely advance similar arguments in relation to the decision of the trial judge. Disclosing the notes does not put counsel for the appellants in a better position to advance their appeal or put the court in a better position to determine the issues raised. The appellants are already in possession of transcripts of the proceedings that took place in the absence of the jury. Those transcripts contain the submissions of trial counsel, the trial judge’s responses to those submissions, and the trial judge’s summary of the notes which was read out in open court in the presence of all the parties. Moreover, as noted above, the trial judge released detailed written reasons explaining why he declined to hold an inquiry, refused to disclose the notes and ultimately sealed them. The appellants are well equipped to challenge the reasoning of the trial judge on appeal. . R. v. Gibson
In R. v. Gibson (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers a criminal appeal, here where an issue was juror secrecy:[16] As noted above, Ms. Gibson learned about the identity of the juror shortly after the verdict. The appellant’s counsel had some communications about the situation with the Crown Law Office (Criminal) and the office of the trial Crown. Both offices, quite rightly in my view, declined to investigate the juror for fear of running afoul of the juror secrecy rule, reflected in s. 649 of the Criminal Code.
|
