R. v. Wigglesworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R. v. Wigglesworth

Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 3, 4, 1987
Judgment: November 19, 1987
Full case name: '
Citations: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541, 45 D.L.R. (4th) 235, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 193, 37 C.C.C. (3d) 385, [1988] 28 Admin. L.R. 294 • (1987), [1988] 32 C.R.R. 219, 60 C.R. (3d) 193, 24 O.A.C. 321, 61 Sask. R. 105
Docket No.: 18613
Court membership

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

Majority by: Wilson J.
Joined by: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest JJ.
Dissent by: Estey J.

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right against double jeopardy under section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court gave a two-part test to determine whether a proceeding is of a criminal matter.

Contents

[edit] Background

Roger Wigglesworth was a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer who committed an assault and was charged with assault under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. He was initially convicted of a "major service offence" under the Act by a disciplinary board and order to pay a fine of $300.

Subsequently he was also charged with common assault under the Criminal Code. He argued that he could not be charged as on the grounds that it would violate his right against double jeopardy under section 11(h) of the Charter.

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Justice Wilson, for the majority of the Court, found that section 11(h) was violated and so Wigglesworth could not be charged with common assault.

She noted that section 11(h) only applies to criminal matters and so both charges must be criminal in nature to invoke the double jeopardy defence. She proposed a two part test to determine whether the first proceedings under the Act was in relation to a criminal matters and therefore invoking section 11(h). First, it must be determined whether the matter is of a "public nature, intended to promote public order and welfare within a public sphere of activity". Second, it must be determined whether the matter involves "the imposition of true penal consequences".

In the current circumstances she found that the initial charge was of a criminal nature as there was the possibility of a jail sentence of up to one year. She also noted that the purpose of the charge was to redress a social injustice rather than to maintain internal discipline.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links