R. v. Williams
R. v. Williams
In the case of R v Williams, the accused was an aboriginal who pleaded not guilty to a robbery charge filed against him and elected a trial by judge and jury. During the initial trial, the trial judge authorized the asking of questions to the potential jurors. However, the Crown filed for a mistrial on the ground of procedural errors and giving too much publicity and exposure on the jury selection process. At the second trial, the judge who heard the motion of the accused issued an unfavourable decision against him to challenge the jurors for cause. The judge who preside the trial caused the dismissal of the renewed application and had not given any warning to the jury for disregarding bias or prejudice towards a native person in the person of the accused. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from conviction. The lower court ruled that there was prevalent prejudice against aboriginal people in their community. The issue in this case is whether or not the evidence of widespread prejudice or bias against aboriginal people in the community puts forward partiality. In this given case, it puts in issue the basis and extent of racial bias or prejudice relating to the criminal offences. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court ordered that the appeal should be allowed. The prosecution and the defence should be given the opportunity to challenge the potential jurors who will decide the case on the basis of partiality. The candidates who are tasked with jury responsibility are required to be unbiased, objective, fair, open-minded and impartial. Such presumption must be succeeded before any person can challenge or question the ability of the jury to carry out this duty. In most instances, the party sought to the challenge the ability of the jury shall demand for material evidence that will substantiate the ground of the concern. However, when such basis of the concern has already been known and widely accepted, under the law of evidence, the judge is required to take judicial notice of such fact. The judge has a wide discretion to regulate the challenge process and must allow the challenge upon proper showing that there is a genuine possibility that the pool of jury has included individuals whose racial prejudice will lean towards the Crown, instead of affording the accused neutral assessment when deciding matters during the course of the trial.
Judicial directions to act neutrally, objectively and without prejudice do not prove to be an efficient means to combat racial prejudice. Any doubt which is raised questioning the fairness, independence and open-mindedness of the jury should allow such prejudice to be examined. Henceforth, the motion that challenges for cause the partiality of the jury must not be dismissed in the absence of any showing of concrete evidence that the potential jurors cannot dismiss their biases. It is expected for the jurors to act in accordance with their oath and sworn duties by breaking free from any biases or prejudices that may affect the community. In this given case, it is well-recognized fact in the community that there is pervasive discrimination against people from different race that will establish the credible potential for partiality.
This appeal was allowed on the ground of the presumption that the jury is impartial and unbiased in performing their duties in deciding cases. Any presumption of impartiality and indifference should be removed prior to the raising questions during the jury selection. Any action which questions the decisions of the jury should be proven by evidence. The judge is allowed by the law to take into account facts of judicial notice. The discretion of the judges is cover to the extent of accept challenges on the issues of bias and prejudice based on race, colour and origin, particularly against the Aboriginal people in the community. Any showing of biases with the tendency to favour the Crown on the part of the jury, should be questioned.
Liberalism or Liberal Legalism refers to a broader political philosophy, which has no core determinative ideas and is pluralistic in tradition (Devlin, 1994, p.609). Karl Klare defines “liberal legalism” as that which serves as the philosophical foundation of the legitimacy of legal order in capitalist societies (Devlin, 1994, p.609). It is characterized by features of having a commitment to general, democratic rules, providing equal treatment for all in the application of law and the complete separation of politics, morals and personality from judicial action. It is also comprised of various social practices and institutions that supplement and explain the fundamental political philosophy and jurisprudence.
In addition, liberal political theory begins with ontology that promotes a rational, free-choosing, autonomous self that is independent to the community and to other selves. In effect, liberalism takes its foundation on the individualized self that is a combination of political philosophy and legal theory that is intended to maximize the realm of action. With this idea emerged the “liberal political philosophy” which states that the society should be governed by principles of liberty, equality and neutrality” (Devlin, 1994). To illustrate further, it espouses the idea that the state and the law must strive to give the citizens the liberty to pursue the promotion of self-interest, and should be afforded with equal opportunities to pursue these interests without any limitations and control on the ground of race, age, class, ability or gender. This end goal promotes equality. At the same time, the state should remain to be uncertain as to the nature of a good life and giving each citizen to realize their own perception of what is good on the basis of their ideas. This fosters neutrality among the people. The concept of liberalism adheres to the philosophy that man is a social being and lives in the condition of interdependence. One of the basic functions of law is to advocate the facilitative role that provides ways for social interactions among the people. As such, the court processes should promote the virtues of liberty and equality by looking beyond the purpose of the law. Another concept of liberalism is for the determination of one’s actions that can cause a negative impact on another known as the “harm principle” (Devlin, 1994). In effect, law must be enacted in accordance to fair rules of participation and procedure, wherein the court shall act as neutral arbiters in an impartial and unbiased manner.
Applying the concept of liberalism in the case of R.v. Williams, the Supreme Court’s decision in allowing the appeal fosters liberalism because it is based on equality, liberty and neutrality. The prosecution and the defence should be given the opportunity to challenge the potential jurors who will decide the case on the basis of partiality. The candidates who are tasked with jury responsibility should exhibit the qualities of objectivity, fairness and impartiality. It was held that the members if the jury who act in an impartial manner promotes racial prejudice. In this given case, the decision of the Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal of conviction has been correctly dismissed. The lower court has ruled that there was widespread prejudice against aboriginal people in the community is a matter that is ought to be known by judges as part of judicial notice. It is expected that the jury should act impartially upon showing that there was widespread prejudice in the community that have the potential of the creating partiality on the basis of race, colour, origin, age and gender. The evidence showing partiality or bias against the aboriginal people in the society must not be set aside by the jury.
It bears stressing that the case of R. v. Williams should be correlated to Section 638(2) of the Criminal Code which required two inquiries and carried two different decisions. The first stage is the inquiry before the judge to identify if the challenge for cause should be allowed. The test at this stage is for the determination of the presence of a realistic potential or possibility for partiality. In the eventuality that the judge shall allow the challenges for cause on the basis of partiality, the second inquiry takes place on the challenge itself. On the part of the defence, they will question the potential jurors whether they promote the prejudices against people on the basis of the race of the accused. If they answer in the affirmative, they are questioned as to whether they dismiss the prejudices aside and will be able to perform the duties of independent and neutral jurors. In order to determine this, the triers shall rule upon the issue of whether the potential juror candidate has the capability to act impartially in deciding similar cases. On the other hand, Section s. 638(1) (b) of the Criminal Code was created for the purpose of preventing any candidate who cannot act impartially as a sitting juror. The purpose and intention of the law is impossible to achieve if the set criteria for challenges for cause is outstandingly high. In the same vein, extreme prejudice is a poor indication of a realistic danger or potential of partiality. Widespread racial prejudice is not an exception to this rule. The prejudice on racial grounds against an accused was detrimental and unfair therefore it should be given reasonable emphasis and consideration. The purpose of the law is to ensure that the relevant facts are gathered in order to support the verdict on the prejudicial aspects against the aboriginal people in the community.
However, it bears stressing that there were some who dissented the judgment which ruled in favour of disallowing the appeal which raised several controversial issues on the grounds of impartiality and indifference on the part of the jury. It raised the issue pertaining to evaluation of the jury to guarantee that the crown was not favored by the court against the accused. Based on the facts of the case of R. v. Williams, it was necessary to gather substantial evidence to establish prejudice or bias on the part of the jury in deciding cases to support the decision of the Court of Appeal. The discretion of the judge to allowing the challenge for cause should also be exercised pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under Section s. 638(1) (b), it should be decided in relation to the basic rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury and equality under the rule of law. The protection of the rights of the accused to fair trial by an impartial jury protects the accused from the widespread prejudice taking place in the community. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was therefore taken into consideration in assessing the racial prejudice against the aboriginal people in the society. This is in relation to the concept of “liberal legalism” which serves as the philosophical foundation of the legitimacy of legal order in capitalist societies (Devlin, 1994, p.609). It is characterized by features of having a commitment to general, democratic rules, providing equal treatment for all in the application of law and the complete separation of politics, morals and personality from judicial action.
Applying the concept of liberalism, it espouses the idea that the state and the law must strive to give the citizens the liberty to pursue the promotion of self-interest, and should be afforded with equal opportunities to pursue these interests without any limitations and control on the ground of race, age, class, ability or gender. This end goal promotes equality. At the same time, the state should remain to be uncertain as to the nature of a good life and giving each citizen to realize their own perception of what is good on the basis of their ideas. This fosters neutrality among the people.
Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court which ordered that the appeal should be allowed is meritorious. The prosecution and the defence should be given the opportunity to challenge the potential jurors who must decide the case on the basis of partiality. The candidates who are tasked with jury responsibility are required to be unbiased, objective, fair, open-minded and impartial in order to protect the rights of the accused to fair trial which is the basic concept of liberalism. The racial prejudice against the accused who is an aboriginal is detrimental to him for the possibility of being denied of a fair trial. The connection between prejudice and verdict that is reached by the jury represents the “interracial component” of the crime or a supposed connection between race of the accused in relation to the crime that he allegedly committed. It has been shown in the ruling of the lower court that racial prejudice can affect the assessment of the juror on the credibility of the accused. Thus, the ruling of the Supreme Court advocates the essence of liberalism which states that the society should be governed by principles of liberty, equality and neutrality (Devlin, 1994).
Reference:
Cariboo-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry (B.C.). (1993). Report on the Cariboo-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry. Victoria. B.C.: The Inquiry.
Devlin, R. F. (1994). “Mapping Legal Theory”, Alberta Law Review 32 (3), 602-621.
R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128
