R. v. Wigglesworth
Encyclopedia
R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the constitutional right against double jeopardy
under Section 11(h)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. The Court gave a two-part test to determine whether a proceeding deals with a criminal matter.
(RCMP) officer who committed an assault and was charged with assault under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. He was initially convicted of a "major service offence" under the Act by a disciplinary board and ordered to pay a fine of $300.
Subsequently he was also charged with common assault under the Criminal Code. He argued that he could not be charged on the grounds that it would constitute double jeopardy in violation of Section 11(h) of the Charter.
, writing for the Court majority, found that Section 11(h) had been violated by the second charge, and therefore Wigglesworth could not be charged with common assault.
She noted that 11(h) only applies to criminal matters and so both charges must be criminal in nature to invoke the double-jeopardy defence. She proposed a two-part test to determine whether a proceeding is in relation to a criminal matter and therefore invoking Section 11(h). First, it must be determined whether the matter is of a "public nature, intended to promote public order and welfare within a public sphere of activity". Second, it must be determined whether the matter involves "the imposition of true penal consequences".
In the current circumstances she found that the initial charge was of a criminal nature, since a jail sentence of up to one year could be imposed. She also noted that the purpose of the charge was to redress a social injustice rather than to maintain internal discipline.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision on the constitutional right against double jeopardy
Double jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction...
under Section 11(h)
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. The Court gave a two-part test to determine whether a proceeding deals with a criminal matter.
Background
Roger Wigglesworth was a Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police , literally ‘Royal Gendarmerie of Canada’; colloquially known as The Mounties, and internally as ‘The Force’) is the national police force of Canada, and one of the most recognized of its kind in the world. It is unique in the world as a national, federal,...
(RCMP) officer who committed an assault and was charged with assault under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. He was initially convicted of a "major service offence" under the Act by a disciplinary board and ordered to pay a fine of $300.
Subsequently he was also charged with common assault under the Criminal Code. He argued that he could not be charged on the grounds that it would constitute double jeopardy in violation of Section 11(h) of the Charter.
Opinion of the Court
Justice WilsonBertha Wilson
Bertha Wernham Wilson, CC was a Canadian jurist and the first woman Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.-Early life:...
, writing for the Court majority, found that Section 11(h) had been violated by the second charge, and therefore Wigglesworth could not be charged with common assault.
She noted that 11(h) only applies to criminal matters and so both charges must be criminal in nature to invoke the double-jeopardy defence. She proposed a two-part test to determine whether a proceeding is in relation to a criminal matter and therefore invoking Section 11(h). First, it must be determined whether the matter is of a "public nature, intended to promote public order and welfare within a public sphere of activity". Second, it must be determined whether the matter involves "the imposition of true penal consequences".
In the current circumstances she found that the initial charge was of a criminal nature, since a jail sentence of up to one year could be imposed. She also noted that the purpose of the charge was to redress a social injustice rather than to maintain internal discipline.