Colour of Right: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The learned trial Judge in his charge to the jury did not define the meaning of the terms "fraudulently” and: "without colour of right". Upon request by defence counsel to charge the jury with respect to colour of right the learned trial Judge recalled the jury and gave them the following direction: | The learned trial Judge in his charge to the jury did not define the meaning of the terms "fraudulently” and: "without colour of right". Upon request by defence counsel to charge the jury with respect to colour of right the learned trial Judge recalled the jury and gave them the following direction: | ||
::HIS HONOUR: I have been asked to charge you again on what is colour of right. Now colour of right means an honest intention or state of facts which would constitute a legal justification or excuse for this woman having this car. | ::HIS HONOUR: I have been asked to charge you again on what is colour of right. <span style=background:yellow>Now colour of right means an honest intention or state of facts which would constitute a legal justification or excuse</span> for this woman having this car. | ||
::Now it's entirely up to you gentlemen to decide that on the evidence that you have heard here in the court room. As I said before anything that I have said about evidence, or anything that counsel have said, why you are absolutely at liberty to disregard it. But if there is a reasonable doubt, any question that the accused had a bona fide claim or right to which she is charged with stealing, she is entitled to that doubt and entitled to be acquitted. | ::Now it's entirely up to you gentlemen to decide that on the evidence that you have heard here in the court room. As I said before anything that I have said about evidence, or anything that counsel have said, why you are absolutely at liberty to disregard it. But if there is a reasonable doubt, any question that the accused had a bona fide claim or right to which she is charged with stealing, she is entitled to that doubt and entitled to be acquitted. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
After deliberating for some time the jury returned and said "the members of the jury would like to have the definition of colour of right clarified". The learned trial Judge then charged the jury as follows: | After deliberating for some time the jury returned and said "the members of the jury would like to have the definition of colour of right clarified". The learned trial Judge then charged the jury as follows: | ||
::His Honour: Now the question arises here as to the intent and the colour of right that you have asked for a definition of. I think the best definition I can give you as to the meaning of colour of right is this. A colour' of right means an honest belief in a state of fact, which, if it actually existed would constitute a legal justification or excuse. Now that's the best definition that I can give you. | ::His Honour: Now the question arises here as to the intent and the colour of right that you have asked for a definition of. I think the best definition I can give you as to the meaning of colour of right is this. <span style=background:yellow>A colour' of right means an honest belief in a state of fact, which, if it actually existed would constitute a legal justification or excuse.</span> Now that's the best definition that I can give you. | ||
::Now as I said before if this woman's evidence is to the effect that you believe that she had under the state of facts that you heard, that she had a justifiable excuse to think she was entitled to keep that car indefinitely. Why then, you have got to give her that benefit of the doubt. But it is entirely a question for the jury as to whether she had that. Her explanation to you is that she would have that idea, that she could keep that car indefinitely because she got it under the, and you have to take all of the evidence into consideration, not just what but if you believe her and that she did and that you find that she did have a justifiable belief, why then you will have to dismiss the case. | ::Now as I said before if this woman's evidence is to the effect that you believe that she had under the state of facts that you heard, that she had a justifiable excuse to think she was entitled to keep that car indefinitely. Why then, you have got to give her that benefit of the doubt. But it is entirely a question for the jury as to whether she had that. Her explanation to you is that she would have that idea, that she could keep that car indefinitely because she got it under the, and you have to take all of the evidence into consideration, not just what but if you believe her and that she did and that you find that she did have a justifiable belief, why then you will have to dismiss the case. | ||
Revision as of 00:47, 15 September 2022
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-05-16 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2005 |
| Page Categories: | [Legal Principles] |
| Citation: | Colour of Right, CLNP 2005, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-16 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2022/09/15 |
Regina v. Demarco, 1973 CanLII 1542 (ON CA)[1]
Page 372 - 373
The learned trial Judge in his charge to the jury did not define the meaning of the terms "fraudulently” and: "without colour of right". Upon request by defence counsel to charge the jury with respect to colour of right the learned trial Judge recalled the jury and gave them the following direction:
- HIS HONOUR: I have been asked to charge you again on what is colour of right. Now colour of right means an honest intention or state of facts which would constitute a legal justification or excuse for this woman having this car.
- Now it's entirely up to you gentlemen to decide that on the evidence that you have heard here in the court room. As I said before anything that I have said about evidence, or anything that counsel have said, why you are absolutely at liberty to disregard it. But if there is a reasonable doubt, any question that the accused had a bona fide claim or right to which she is charged with stealing, she is entitled to that doubt and entitled to be acquitted.
In our view this direction failed to make clear to the jury that if the accused had any honest belief in a state of facts which if they existed would constitute a legal justification or excuse for her retaining the car such belief itself negatived theft.
After deliberating for some time the jury returned and said "the members of the jury would like to have the definition of colour of right clarified". The learned trial Judge then charged the jury as follows:
- His Honour: Now the question arises here as to the intent and the colour of right that you have asked for a definition of. I think the best definition I can give you as to the meaning of colour of right is this. A colour' of right means an honest belief in a state of fact, which, if it actually existed would constitute a legal justification or excuse. Now that's the best definition that I can give you.
- Now as I said before if this woman's evidence is to the effect that you believe that she had under the state of facts that you heard, that she had a justifiable excuse to think she was entitled to keep that car indefinitely. Why then, you have got to give her that benefit of the doubt. But it is entirely a question for the jury as to whether she had that. Her explanation to you is that she would have that idea, that she could keep that car indefinitely because she got it under the, and you have to take all of the evidence into consideration, not just what but if you believe her and that she did and that you find that she did have a justifiable belief, why then you will have to dismiss the case.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Regina v. Demarco, 1973 CanLII 1542 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/hv028>, retrieved on 2022-09-14
