Case information

Criminal law — Trial — Closing submissions to jury — Conduct of Crown counsel — Fair trial — Whether trial judges abdicate their judicial responsibilities when they neglect to provide a timely, sharp, corrective instruction to a jury as soon as possible after Crown counsel denigrates defence counsel — Whether the cumulative effect of Crown counsel’s comments and the trial judge’s inaction resulted in a miscarriage of justice — Whether the only appropriate remedy is a new trial — Accepting that the obligation of defence counsel is to put the theory of the accused to the complainant, particularly where an accused testifies regarding their version of events, is defence counsel not obligated to address the veracity and credibility of the complainant?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. Derksen was charged with sexual assault. The complainant testified and described a sexual assault. Mr. Derksen testified that the sexual conduct was initiated by the complainant and consensual. In closing submissions, Crown counsel made a number of statements that caused defence counsel to raise whether Crown counsel’s conduct was inappropriate. Toews J. did not provide a remedy or recall the jury to give a direction regarding the impugned statements. The jury convicted Mr. Derksen of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.