Case Brief

(Assignment #2: R. v. Williams Case Brief)

By Ranthosh Mahalingam
St # 101318145

Intro to Legal Studies I

LAWS 1001 C
Carleton University

Professor: Sebastien Malette

Teaching Assistant: Simon Polesel
Date: 21 November 2023
 2

Case name and citation

R. v. Williams [1998] 1 S.C.R1. 11281

Type and Level of Case; Judgment Delivered by

This case has been heard in the Supreme Court of Canada after it has been to the British

Columbia Court of Appeal. In the Supreme Court, the judges allowed the appeal and direct a new

trial.2

Facts

On October 1993, Victor Daniel Williams, an aboriginal, was convicted for a robbery that took

place in Victoria pizza parlour. Victor pleaded not guilty because according to him the crime he

was accused of was committed by someone else. 3 At his first court trial, he “applied to question

potential jurors for racial bias under s. 638 of the Code.” 4, a motion that was granted by Judge

Hutchison J.5 Once the two questions were asked to the jurors, the court had to dismiss 12 of

them due to the risk of bias. 6 Consequently, “The Crown applied for a mistrial on the basis of

procedural errors, including use of the same two jurors on all the challenges, coupled with

“unfortunate publicity” of the jury selection process.”7 During his second trial, Judge Esson C. J

recognized that during the first trial, William was allowed to challenge for cause because there

were racial bias. However, Esson C.J. noted that the standard for allowing a challenge for cause

is the ‘reasonable possibility’ of bias or partiality. Nonetheless, while Esson C.J. acknowledges

the existence of bias, he mentions that this prejudice shouldn’t affect the case verdict. He argues
1
R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128
2
Ibid at Para 59-60
3
Ibid Para 1
4
Ibid para 3
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
Ibid
 3

that “jurors can be expected to put aside their biases and because the jury system provides

effective safeguards against such biases.” 8 Therefore, he excluded the argument which stated

“the widespread bias against Natives created a reasonable possibility of partiality sufficient to

support a challenge for cause.”9 Vickers J., the judge who was in charge of the court proceedings,

took over and also refused to allow Victor to challenge potential jurors for cause. 10 At the end of

the trial, Victor Daniel Williams was found guilty of the crime of robbery at the Victoria pizza

parlour.11 After this case, “Williams appealed to the Court of Appeal on the issue of challenge for

cause.”12 The Court of Appeal agreed with the statement of Esson C.J. about the bias. Therefore,

the appeal issued by William was dismissed, and his conviction was upheld. 13 Subsequently,

Victor appealed to the Supreme Court, which acknowledge the widespread prejudice in the case

that could lead to a partial juror.14 Thus, the Supreme Court granted the appeal and gave him a

new trial.15

Issue(s)

The issue in this case is to determine whether Victor, the appellant, was intitle to ask questions or

challenge for cause the potential juror to discern if they had any “prejudice against aboriginals

which might impair their impartiality.”16 If there is any sort of bias towards Indigenous people

that could lead to a miscarriage of justice, this questioning may confirm it.

8
Ibid para 5
9
Ibid para
10
Ibid para 6
11
Ibid
12
Ibid
13
Ibid para 7
14
Ibid para 58
15
Ibid para 59
16
Ibid Para 1
 4

Judgment/Reasoning

In this case of Victor Daniel Williams, the Supreme Court decided that “the trial judge should

have allowed the accused to challenge prospective jurors for cause.” Therefore, the decision was

that Williams had the right to question the jurors to determine if any of them are biased because

of his ethnicity. The Supreme Court ruled the way they did since there are many factors that

could have caused partiality during his case. One such factor is based on “a juror is not

indifferent between the Queen and the accused.” 17 This implies that a juror may harbor some

form of bias or preconceived notion about the case, which could affect their perception of the

evidence presented and the fairness of their verdict. Here are the four classes of potential juror

prejudice. The first is the interest prejudice , which may occur if a juror has a relationship to the

case. For example, if he is associated with one of the parties. 18 The second is specific bias,

referring to attitude or even the belief that could interfere with the juror's verdict. 19 For example,

“a prejudiced juror might see the Crown as non-aboriginal or non-black and hence to be favoured

over an aboriginal or black accused.”20 This could affect the case because a juror could be more

inclined to take side with the Crown. The third is the conformity prejudice, which arises when

the case has a strong impact in the community and there is a clear outcome that they await. 21 The

last one is generic partiality, which is “the class of prejudice at issue on this appeal, arises from

stereotypical attitudes about the defendant, victims, witnesses or the nature of the crime itself.” 22

An example of this is the case I am briefing right now. As stated in the facts, William was victim

of racial prejudice. This means that instead of receiving a verdict based on the facts presented in
17
Ibid para 9
18
Ibid para 10
19
Ibid
20
Ibid para 28
21
Ibid
22
Ibid
 5

court, he was judged by the stereotypical attitudes towards his people. Therefore, the trial that

was given to Victor was not a fair one because of the partial jurors who harbored racist belief

against him instead of considering the facts of the case . After hearing the case of Victor Daniel

Williams, the judge decided to grant his appeal and ordered a new hearing. 23 Consequently, the

Supreme Court assembled a re-trial and overturned the lower courts' decision, recognizing that

the original proceedings had been compromised by bias.

Disposition/Outcome [OPTIONAL]

After the judge heard the case of Victor Daniel Williams, he decided to grant his appeal and

ordered a new hearing.

Reference

R. v. Williams [1998] 1 S.C.R1. 1128 :

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1631/index.do

23
Ibid para 60