Offences, defences, and the limits on the state's power to investigate and punish.
Evidence obtained in breach of a Charter right is excluded where admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
When sentencing an Indigenous offender, a judge must consider their background and circumstances and all available alternatives to imprisonment.
The Crown must disclose all relevant material to the defence, subject only to limited privilege.
A person charged with an offence is presumed innocent; the Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court reaffirmed and strengthened the Gladue principles, holding that sentencing judges must take judicial notice of the history and circumstances of Indigenous peoples and apply the analysis in every case, including for serious offences.
The Court restated when a person is “detained” for Charter purposes and set a three-part framework for deciding whether evidence obtained in breach of the Charter should be excluded under section 24(2), focused on the long-term repute of the justice system.
Interpreting section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, the Court held that judges must pay particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders when sentencing, considering their background and alternatives to imprisonment.
The Court held that the Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant material to the defence — whether or not it intends to rely on it, and subject only to limited privilege — because disclosure is essential to the right to make full answer and defence.
The Court held that a conviction for murder requires proof of subjective foresight of death. The principles of fundamental justice under section 7 forbid convicting a person of murder without that mental element.
The Court held that expert evidence on the effects of prolonged abuse is admissible, and that self-defence need not require the danger to be strictly imminent in every case — the reasonableness of the accused's perception may be judged in its full context.
The House of Lords held that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused — the “golden thread” running through the criminal law. Subject to narrow exceptions, no burden rests on an accused to prove innocence.