Reinterpretation by the Supreme Court leads to inconsistency in approach
The shift in approach and lack of consistency is also evidenced in the approach taken in Hall then subsequently reinterpreted in St- Cloud. In Hall, the issue was regarding the tertiary ground for denying bail, the Supreme Court made statements regarding the rare circumstances that the tertiary ground would be used. The Chief justice stated that “while the circumstance in which recourse to this ground for bail denial may not arise frequently, when they do it is essential that a means of denying bail may be available.”(657) During the period after the decision in Hall, the lower courts had adopted the approach that the ground was intended to be used in rare cases. But …show more content…
There are nine justices that make up the composition of the Supreme Court; it is inevitable that different views, opinions and decisions result. The differences of the judges may be a valuable quality for their ability to represent different view. Nonetheless, the differences in views and approaches can lead to a lack of consistency and principled in approach from case to case. For example, where the Supreme Court is split 5:4 on a decision, it is not unlikely that a second look at the same issue or one that is similar may lead to the minority decision becoming the majority, resulting in inconsistency and change in principle. This is evident in various criminal procedure cases. Also the stark disagreement between the majority and the minority decisions also raises questions about consistency and principles that the court …show more content…
For example, In R v La the minority held that “the duty to disclose resting upon the crown does not constitute a separate and distinct right operating on its own principle of fundamental justice…disclosure, as a process, engaged different aspects of fundamental justice under s 7. Not every error or omission by the crown in making disclosure should automatically lead to a violation of the charter.” (701) However, in subsequent cases, such as, R v Dixon the supreme court was unanimous in confirming that “the right to disclosure of the crown case was indeed a freestanding s. 7 right.” (701) Furthermore, the differing views that the Supreme Court has regarding their approach to dialogue and defer to parliament also results in consistency and differing principles. In R v Hall where the majorities approach was one that emphasized a deferential approach where the parliament has enacted legislation in response to a decision. Conversely, the minority held that “the mere fact that parliament has responded to a constitutional decision of this court is not reason to defer to that response where it does not demonstrate a proper recognition of the constitutional requirements imposed by that decision.”
The shift in approach and lack of consistency is also evidenced in the approach taken in Hall then subsequently reinterpreted in St- Cloud. In Hall, the issue was regarding the tertiary ground for denying bail, the Supreme Court made statements regarding the rare circumstances that the tertiary ground would be used. The Chief justice stated that “while the circumstance in which recourse to this ground for bail denial may not arise frequently, when they do it is essential that a means of denying bail may be available.”(657) During the period after the decision in Hall, the lower courts had adopted the approach that the ground was intended to be used in rare cases. But …show more content…
There are nine justices that make up the composition of the Supreme Court; it is inevitable that different views, opinions and decisions result. The differences of the judges may be a valuable quality for their ability to represent different view. Nonetheless, the differences in views and approaches can lead to a lack of consistency and principled in approach from case to case. For example, where the Supreme Court is split 5:4 on a decision, it is not unlikely that a second look at the same issue or one that is similar may lead to the minority decision becoming the majority, resulting in inconsistency and change in principle. This is evident in various criminal procedure cases. Also the stark disagreement between the majority and the minority decisions also raises questions about consistency and principles that the court …show more content…
For example, In R v La the minority held that “the duty to disclose resting upon the crown does not constitute a separate and distinct right operating on its own principle of fundamental justice…disclosure, as a process, engaged different aspects of fundamental justice under s 7. Not every error or omission by the crown in making disclosure should automatically lead to a violation of the charter.” (701) However, in subsequent cases, such as, R v Dixon the supreme court was unanimous in confirming that “the right to disclosure of the crown case was indeed a freestanding s. 7 right.” (701) Furthermore, the differing views that the Supreme Court has regarding their approach to dialogue and defer to parliament also results in consistency and differing principles. In R v Hall where the majorities approach was one that emphasized a deferential approach where the parliament has enacted legislation in response to a decision. Conversely, the minority held that “the mere fact that parliament has responded to a constitutional decision of this court is not reason to defer to that response where it does not demonstrate a proper recognition of the constitutional requirements imposed by that decision.”