| R. v. Coote | |
|---|---|
| Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Full case name | Our Sovereign Lady the Queen v. Edward Coote |
| Date decided | 18 March 1873 |
| Citation(s) | (1873), L.R. 4 P.C. 599, [1873] UKPC 26. |
| Judges sitting | Sir James W. Colvile Sir Barnes Peacock Lord Justice Mellish Sir Montague Smith Sir Robert P. Collier |
| Decision by | Sir Robert P. Collier |
| Appealed from | Quebec Court of Queen's Bench |
| Keywords | |
| Provincial inquiry power; Admissibility of depositions | |
R. v. Coote [1] is a court case dealing with the constitutional law of Canada, decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada within the British Empire. It was the first decision by the Judicial Committee dealing with the Constitution Act, 1867[2] (formerly the British North America Act, 1867). The Judicial Committee held that the Province of Quebec had the constitutional authority to create a mandatory inquiry power for provincial fire commissioners. The Judicial Committee also held that evidence given by an individual in response to a mandatory inquiry could later be used as evidence against that individual in a criminal prosecution for arson.
Contents |
In 1871, there was a fire in the warehouse owned by the accused, Edward Coote, in Montreal, Quebec. Fire commissioners appointed under provincial law investigated the fire. In the course of their investigation, they twice interrogated Mr Coote. Under the authority granted by provincial law, Mr Coote was required to respond to the questions of the fire commissioners. Subsequently, Mr Coote was charged with four counts of arson with intent to defraud various insurance companies. He was tried before a single judge of the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench, sitting with a jury. The Crown successfully entered the two depositions in evidence. The jury convicted Mr Coote. The trial judge reserved questions of law for the full Court to consider, including the validity of the provincial statute and the admissibility of the depositions in evidence against the accused.[3]
On 15 March 1872, the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench allowed the accused's appeal, in a 3-2 decision. The majority held that while the provincial statute in question was within the constitutional authority of the Province, the depositions could not be admitted in the criminal trial. The Court quashed the guilty verdict.[4]
The Crown appealed from the Quebec Queen's Bench to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting in London. (The Supreme Court of Canada had not yet been created.) As the accused did not appear by counsel, the Committee heard the case ex parte[5] on 11 March 1873 and gave its decision on 18 March 1873, allowing the Crown appeal.
Sir Robert P. Collier gave the decision for the Committee. He briefly disposed of the constitutional issue, referring to the lower court's conclusion that the law was within provincial jurisdiction and stating that the Committee agreed with that ruling.[6]
The main focus of his decision was on the issue of the admissibility of the two depositions in the subsequent criminal trial. He concluded that "... the depositions on Oath of a Witness legally taken are evidence against him, should he be subsequently tried on a criminal charge", except for questions which the witness had objected to answering.[7] He also concluded that the fire commissioners did not have any duty to warn Mr Coote of his right to have counsel present, since they had not arrested him at the time of the questioning.[8]
As a result, the Committee advised Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, that the conviction at trial be affirmed and that the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench pass sentence on Mr Coote.[9]
R. v. Coote was the first case which considered (albeit very briefly) the constitutional division of powers under the Constitution Act, 1867.
The federal Department of Justice included this decision in the three volume collection of constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee which the Department published when appeals to the Judicial Committee were abolished.[10]
The Supreme Court of Canada continues to cite the Coote case with approval, for the proposition that the provinces have the constitutional authority to enact legislation creating public inquiries with the power to compel testimony from witnesses.[11][12]