Reference re Gruenke, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 836
Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke) Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: Reference re Gruenke
Neutral citation: 2000 SCC 32.
File No.: 27207.
2000: June 15.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba
Criminal law -- Evidence -- Fresh evidence -- Battered-woman syndrome -- Accused convicted of first degree murder in 1987 -- Self Defence Review Committee appointed in 1995 to review cases of women convicted before Supreme Court’s decision in Lavallee dealing with battered-woman syndrome -- Committee interviewing accused and recommending that her case be referred to Court of Appeal -- Court of Appeal asked to give opinion on whether information obtained by Committee admissible as fresh evidence -- Court of Appeal finding information inadmissible as fresh evidence -- Court of Appeal’s judgment affirmed.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 690(b).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1998), 131 Man. R. (2d) 161, 187 W.A.C. 161, 131 C.C.C. (3d) 72, [1999] 3 W.W.R. 118, [1998] M.J. No. 549 (QL), in the matter of a reference pursuant to s. 690 of the Criminal Code concerning whether the information obtained by the Self Defence Review Committee relating to a killing committed by the accused was admissible as fresh evidence. Appeal dismissed.
Terence C. Semenuk, Q.C., for the appellant.
Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 The Chief Justice — We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed. We are of the view that the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that none of the information obtained by the Self Defence Review Committee would be admissible as fresh evidence. Under the terms of Reference, the admissibility of the information before the Committee as fresh evidence is a precondition to a new hearing under s. 690(b) of the Criminal Code. The appellant concedes that if the report of Dr. Shane is not admissible, the appeal must fail. For the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, Dr. Shane’s new affidavit is not admissible. Therefore the appeal must fail.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Scott Hall, Calgary.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Winnipeg.