Введение
R v S (RD), [1997] 3 SCR 484 является знаковым решением Верховного суда Канады, определяющим правила установления разумных оснований для опасений предвзятости судей и устанавливающим пределы применения социального контекста в отправлении правосудия. Дело представлял Бёрнли "Роки" Джонс из Галифакса, провинция Новая Шотландия.
Факты
17 октября 1993 года в городе Галифакс, провинция Новая Шотландия, был арестован молодой человек, чернокожий по происхождению, предположительно за нападение на полицейского Стиенбурга во время попытки арестовать другого человека. Полицейский заявил, что молодой человек намеренно врезался в него на велосипеде, пытаясь освободить человека, которого полицейский уже заковал в наручники. Молодой человек, в свою очередь, утверждает, что остановил велосипед, чтобы посмотреть, что происходит, так как на месте происшествия собралась толпа. Он узнал арестованного и несколько раз спрашивал его, не нужно ли позвонить его матери, ни разу не обращаясь к полицейскому. Услышав его, полицейский пригрозил арестом. Когда молодой человек продолжил говорить, полицейский его арестовал.
Решение
На уровне суда судья Коррин Спаркс оправдала молодого человека, поскольку единственными доказательствами были показания сотрудника полиции и молодого человека, и оба казались вполне заслуживающими доверия. В заключение своего решения она добавила:
"I believe that probably the situation in this particular case is the case of a young police officer who overreacted. And I do accept the evidence of Mr. S. that he was told to shut up or he would be under arrest. That seems to be in keeping with the prevalent attitude of the day." The last phrase became the focus of all the appeals to follow. Judgements needs to be based solely on the evidence while the phrase suggests some preconceived notions. It was determined at the trial and appeal level that there was an "apprehension of bias" on the part of Sparks. However, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored Sparks' acquittal of RDS. The Court noted that
A judge who happens to be black is no more likely to be biased in dealing with black litigants, than a white judge is likely to be biased in favour of white litigants. All judges of every race, colour, religion, or national background are entitled to the same presumption of judicial integrity and the same high threshold for a finding of bias. (para. 115)
A high standard must be met before a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias can be made. Troubling as Judge Sparks’ remarks may be, the Crown has not satisfied its onus to provide the cogent evidence needed to impugn the impartiality of Judge Sparks. Although her comments, viewed in isolation, were unfortunate and unnecessary, a reasonable, informed person, aware of all the circumstances, would not conclude that they gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. (para. 158)
"Я полагаю, что, вероятно, в данном конкретном случае речь идет о молодом полицейском, который чрезмерно отреагировал. И я принимаю показания г-на С. о том, что ему приказали замолчать под угрозой ареста. Это, по-видимому, соответствует преобладающему настроению того времени." Эта последняя фраза стала предметом всех последующих апелляций. Приговоры должны основываться исключительно на доказательствах, в то время как эта фраза намекает на наличие предубеждений. Было установлено как на уровне суда первой инстанции, так и в апелляционной инстанции, что со стороны Спаркс имелось "обоснованное опасение предвзятости". Однако Верховный суд Канады удовлетворил апелляцию и восстановил оправдательный приговор Спаркс в отношении RDS. Суд отметил, что
"I believe that probably the situation in this particular case is the case of a young police officer who overreacted. And I do accept the evidence of Mr. S. that he was told to shut up or he would be under arrest. That seems to be in keeping with the prevalent attitude of the day." The last phrase became the focus of all the appeals to follow. Judgements needs to be based solely on the evidence while the phrase suggests some preconceived notions. It was determined at the trial and appeal level that there was an "apprehension of bias" on the part of Sparks. However, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored Sparks' acquittal of RDS. The Court noted that
A judge who happens to be black is no more likely to be biased in dealing with black litigants, than a white judge is likely to be biased in favour of white litigants. All judges of every race, colour, religion, or national background are entitled to the same presumption of judicial integrity and the same high threshold for a finding of bias. (para. 115)
A high standard must be met before a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias can be made. Troubling as Judge Sparks’ remarks may be, the Crown has not satisfied its onus to provide the cogent evidence needed to impugn the impartiality of Judge Sparks. Although her comments, viewed in isolation, were unfortunate and unnecessary, a reasonable, informed person, aware of all the circumstances, would not conclude that they gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. (para. 158)
судья, являющийся представителем чернокожего населения, не более склонен к предвзятости по отношению к чернокожим истцам, чем белый судья – к предвзятости в пользу белых истцов. Все судьи, независимо от расы, цвета кожи, религии или национального происхождения, имеют право на одинаковую презумпцию судебной честности и одинаково высокий порог для установления факта предвзятости (абз. 115).
"I believe that probably the situation in this particular case is the case of a young police officer who overreacted. And I do accept the evidence of Mr. S. that he was told to shut up or he would be under arrest. That seems to be in keeping with the prevalent attitude of the day." The last phrase became the focus of all the appeals to follow. Judgements needs to be based solely on the evidence while the phrase suggests some preconceived notions. It was determined at the trial and appeal level that there was an "apprehension of bias" on the part of Sparks. However, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored Sparks' acquittal of RDS. The Court noted that
A judge who happens to be black is no more likely to be biased in dealing with black litigants, than a white judge is likely to be biased in favour of white litigants. All judges of every race, colour, religion, or national background are entitled to the same presumption of judicial integrity and the same high threshold for a finding of bias. (para. 115)
A high standard must be met before a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias can be made. Troubling as Judge Sparks’ remarks may be, the Crown has not satisfied its onus to provide the cogent evidence needed to impugn the impartiality of Judge Sparks. Although her comments, viewed in isolation, were unfortunate and unnecessary, a reasonable, informed person, aware of all the circumstances, would not conclude that they gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. (para. 158)
Для признания обоснованного опасения предвзятости необходимо соблюдение высоких стандартов. Несмотря на то, что высказывания судьи Спаркс могут вызывать беспокойство, сторона обвинения не представила убедительных доказательств, необходимых для опровержения беспристрастности судьи Спаркс. Хотя ее комментарии, рассматриваемые изолированно, были неудачными и излишними, разумный и осведомленный человек, знающий все обстоятельства дела, не пришел бы к выводу, что они породили обоснованное опасение предвзятости (абз. 158).
"I believe that probably the situation in this particular case is the case of a young police officer who overreacted. And I do accept the evidence of Mr. S. that he was told to shut up or he would be under arrest. That seems to be in keeping with the prevalent attitude of the day." The last phrase became the focus of all the appeals to follow. Judgements needs to be based solely on the evidence while the phrase suggests some preconceived notions. It was determined at the trial and appeal level that there was an "apprehension of bias" on the part of Sparks. However, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored Sparks' acquittal of RDS. The Court noted that
A judge who happens to be black is no more likely to be biased in dealing with black litigants, than a white judge is likely to be biased in favour of white litigants. All judges of every race, colour, religion, or national background are entitled to the same presumption of judicial integrity and the same high threshold for a finding of bias. (para. 115)
A high standard must be met before a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias can be made. Troubling as Judge Sparks’ remarks may be, the Crown has not satisfied its onus to provide the cogent evidence needed to impugn the impartiality of Judge Sparks. Although her comments, viewed in isolation, were unfortunate and unnecessary, a reasonable, informed person, aware of all the circumstances, would not conclude that they gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. (para. 158)