R. v. R.D.S.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
R. v. R.D.S. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484, 1997 SCC 86 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on establishing the rules for determining reasonable apprehension of bias in the court system by judges, and establishing limits to the application of social context in judging.
[edit] Facts
During the fall of 1993, in the city Halifax, Nova Scotia, a black youth was arrested, allegedly for assaulting a police officer while he was attempting to arrest another individual. The police officer claimed that the youth ran into him with his bike attempting to free the individual the police officer had in a chokehold. The youth, on the other hand, alleges that he stopped his bike to see what the police officer was doing, as a crowd had amassed at the scene. The youth recognised the individual being arrested and asked him repeatedly if he should call his mother, not once addressing the officer. Hearing the youth, the officer threatened to arrest him. When the youth continued to talk the police officer arrested him.
[edit] Ruling
At the trial level, Judge Sparks acquitted the youth, for the reason that the only evidence was the testimony of the officer and the youth, and both had reasonable credibility. In the end of her judgement she added,
"I believe that probably the situation in this particular case is the case of a young police officer who overreacted. And I do accept the evidence of Mr. S. that he was told to shut up or he would be under arrest. That seems to be in keeping with the prevalent attitude of the day."
The last phrase became the focus of all the appeals to follow. Judgements needs to be based solely on the evidence while the phrase suggests some preconceived notions.
It was determined at both the Appeal level and later the Supreme Court level that there was an "apprehension of bias" on the part of Judge Sparks.
