R. v. Turpin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R. v. Turpin

Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: June 16, 1988
Judgment: May 4, 1989
Full case name: Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui v. Her Majesty The Queen
Citations: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296
Ruling: Accused appeal dimissed
Court membership

Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, William McIntyre, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka
Reasons given

Unanimous reason by: Wilson J.
Le Dain, McIntyre and Sopinka JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

R. v. Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296 is a leading constitutional case of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that the requirement for a murder trial to be conducted in front of a judge and jury did not violate the right to trial by jury under sections 11(f) or the equality guarantee under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[edit] Background

Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui were tried for first degree murder in Ontario. As with all murder trials, they must be tried in front of a judge and jury according to ss. 427, 429 and 430 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Turpin and Siddiqui challenged the constitutionality of the provisions on two grounds. First, they claimed that section 11(f) of the Charter granted them a right to choose between judge alone or judge and jury, which was violated by the Code provisions. Second, they argued that since there is an exception to the Code provisions for trials in Alberta, there was a violation of their right to equality under section 15 of the Charter.

At trial, the judge found that the provisions were unconstitutional for violating both sections. On appeal, the ruling was overturned.

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Justice Wilson, writing for the Court, dismissed the appeal and found that there was no violation. She found that section 11(f) did not protect selection of mode of trial, nor did it protect the right to trial by judge alone. On the equality issue she found that persons living outside of Alberta did not constitute a "disadvantaged group" as required in a successful claim.

[edit] External links

  • Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUMand CanLII