An aboriginal by the name of Victor Daniel Williams, was charged in the year 1993 with robbery of a pizza parlour. He elected a trial by judge and jury, at which he pleaded not guilty to the crime. His defence was one of mistaken identity, nevertheless the jury convicted him . He claimed he was not involved with robbery, and that the robbery was committed by someone else. At his first trial, Williams argued that his rights under the grounds of, ss.7, 11(d) and 15(1) of the charter, had been violated due to the fact that he was denied the right to challenge potential jurors for cause to conclude whether they displayed a racial bias against aboriginals which might impair their impartiality. Williams applied and challenged that potential jurors
…show more content…
The trial judge granted the Crown’s application. Williams’ submitted a motion for an order authorizing him challenge the jurors, which was heard by Esson C.J, and filed the ruling of the previous judge as support. Esson C.J. of the Supreme Court of British Columbia accepted that there was widespread prejudice that could cause bias in the jurors against Williams, however did not accept that this bias created “a reasonable possibility of partiality sufficient to support a challenge for cause.” He did not consider that a juror would be influenced by any such bias when carrying out the “solemn duty of deciding whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged” . The B.C. Court of Appeal held that “there is a presumption of juror impartiality which is not discharged by evidence of general bias in the community against persons of the accused’s …show more content…
The Crown argued that in order to have pragmatic potential for partiality in the Jury’s decision making there has to be concrete evidence of prejudice that would prove the jurors are incapable of setting it aside at trial, not just allegations. The defence, however, accepted that proven allegations widespread prejudice against aboriginals is ample to raise a pragmatic potential as the right to challenge for cause is not extreme or exceptional in any
The trial judge granted the Crown’s application. Williams’ submitted a motion for an order authorizing him challenge the jurors, which was heard by Esson C.J, and filed the ruling of the previous judge as support. Esson C.J. of the Supreme Court of British Columbia accepted that there was widespread prejudice that could cause bias in the jurors against Williams, however did not accept that this bias created “a reasonable possibility of partiality sufficient to support a challenge for cause.” He did not consider that a juror would be influenced by any such bias when carrying out the “solemn duty of deciding whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged” . The B.C. Court of Appeal held that “there is a presumption of juror impartiality which is not discharged by evidence of general bias in the community against persons of the accused’s …show more content…
The Crown argued that in order to have pragmatic potential for partiality in the Jury’s decision making there has to be concrete evidence of prejudice that would prove the jurors are incapable of setting it aside at trial, not just allegations. The defence, however, accepted that proven allegations widespread prejudice against aboriginals is ample to raise a pragmatic potential as the right to challenge for cause is not extreme or exceptional in any