R v Jewitt

R. v. Jewitt

[1985] 2 S.C.R. 128
Supreme Court of Canada — Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ. | September 19, 1985

Background

Damon Fidel Garfield Jewitt was charged with unlawfully trafficking in cannabis (marijuana) under the Narcotic Control Act. At his trial in Vancouver, he pleaded not guilty but admitted selling one pound of marijuana to what he thought was a fellow employee — who turned out to be an undercover police officer.

The jury found there had been unlawful entrapment by police. Based on this finding, the trial judge directed the Clerk of the Court to make an entry staying the proceedings on the indictment. The Attorney General of Canada appealed this "acquittal" to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which dismissed the Crown's appeal for want of jurisdiction — they said the Crown had no right to appeal a stay of proceedings.

Issues

1. Does a trial court judge have discretionary power to stay proceedings in a criminal case for abuse of process?
2. Is a judicially-entered stay of proceedings equivalent to a "judgment or verdict of acquittal" that can be appealed by the Crown under s. 605(1)(a) of the Criminal Code?

The Power to Stay for Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court confirmed that trial judges do have residual discretion to stay proceedings where compelling an accused to stand trial would violate fundamental principles of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process through oppressive or vexatious proceedings. This power stems from the court's inherent jurisdiction, recognized in Canada as early as 1886. However, the Court emphasized this is a power of "special application which can be exercised only in the clearest of cases" — it should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances.

Stay of Proceedings vs. Acquittal

The Court's main ruling addressed whether a stay equals an acquittal for appeal purposes. The judges examined the purpose and effect of each: a stay of proceedings stops or arrests judicial proceedings by court direction, while an acquittal is a final determination that the accused is not guilty. Although both effectively end the proceedings and prevent the accused from being tried again on the same charge, the Court concluded they are legally different. A stay is based on procedural considerations and questions of law, while an acquittal determines guilt or innocence on the merits. Since s. 605(1)(a) of the Criminal Code allows Crown appeals from "judgment or verdict of acquittal," and Parliament used specific language, the Court held that a stay of proceedings is tantamount to an acquittal and therefore subject to Crown appeal.

Key Takeaway

When a judge stays proceedings for abuse of process, it's legally equivalent to an acquittal — meaning the Crown can appeal it.

This case clarifies that while trial judges have power to stay proceedings in exceptional circumstances involving serious procedural abuse, such decisions aren't immune from Crown appeals. The ruling ensures that the abuse of process doctrine can't be used as an end-run around the normal appeal process.