Supreme Court of Canada website
Decisions
| Case name | R. v. Picot |
| Collection | Appeals |
| Date | 2012-10-19 |
| Neutral citation | 2012 SCC 54 |
| Case number | 34499 |
| Judges | LeBel, Louis; Fish, Morris J.; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Karakatsanis, Andromache |
| On appeal from | New Brunswick |
| Subjects | Criminal law |
| Notes | SCC Case Information: 34499 |
No 34499
Le 19 octobre 2012
| October 19, 2012 | ||
| Coram : Les juges LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell et Karakatsanis | Coram: LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ. | |
| ENTRE :Charles Picot
Appelant – et – Sa Majesté la Reine Intimée |
BETWEEN:Charles Picot
Appellant – and – Her Majesty the Queen Respondent |
|
|
JUGEMENT L’appel contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Nouveau-Brunswick, numéro 37-10-CA, 2011 NBCA 70, en date du 18 août 2011, a été entendu le 19 octobre 2012, et la Cour a prononcé oralement le même jour le jugement suivant :
Le juge LeBel — Nous sommes d’accord avec le juge Richard, dissident en Cour d’appel, pour dire que le juge de première instance avait acquitté l’accusé sur la base d’un doute raisonnable et qu’il n’avait commis aucune erreur de droit déterminante en concluant ainsi. Pour ces motifs, nous accueillons le pourvoi de l’appelant Picot, nous cassons l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Nouveau-Brunswick ordonnant un nouveau procès et nous rétablissons le verdict d’acquittement de l’appelant prononcé par le juge Ouellette de la Cour du Banc de la Reine du Nouveau-Brunswick.
|
JUDGMENT The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, Number 37-10-CA, 2011 NBCA 70, dated August 18, 2011, was heard on October 19, 2012, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: [translation] LeBel J. — We agree with Richard J.A., who dissented in the Court of Appeal, that the trial judge had acquitted the accused on the basis of a reasonable doubt and that he had committed no fatal error of law in reaching that decision. For these reasons, the appeal of the appellant Picot is allowed, the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordering a new trial is set aside and the acquittal of the appellant entered by Ouellette J. of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench is restored. |
J.C.S.C.
J.S.C.C.
Please read the dissenting opinion of Justice Richard – scroll down to page 37 of the document.
This whole decision and Picot’s acquittal rests on whether or not the trial judge believed that, contrary to the law of the land, he needed corroboration to convict. Seems to me that the trial judge did want corroboration, but – Richard and now the justices of the Supreme Court say he did not. And, that’s the end of it. It’s over. There is nowhere to go to appeal.
How much, I wonder, did the Bathurst Diocese pay for this legal victory for a clerical molester?