R. V. Turpin Case Study

The Significance of the R. v. Turpin Case to Canadian Law
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented 1982 has been essential in providing justice for all Canadian citizens. Countless amounts of cases have been decided to create the Charter that is well known in today’s society. Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui were accused of first degree murder and according to the law, the trial was supposed to be tried by a judge and jury. The accused demanded a trial by judge alone because they believed that they were entitled to such a right. The R. v. Turpin case was a significant case that was tough to decide upon because there were many violations of different statutes such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal

Code. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the R. v. Turpin case is significant, because it impacts Canadian law by challenging the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 11, and 15. The case impacts the rights of Canadian citizens by outlining whether or not the justice system is discriminating the appellant’s individual rights, and lastly, it impacts the rights of a society by providing equality between the accused within Alberta, and in other provinces in Canada.
The court’s decision had a significant impact on Canadian law because it set a legal precedent for future cases.

A crucial issue that was relevant during the trial was that should the Supreme Court of Canada support the Criminal Code under section 429 and 430 or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 11 and 15. This brought up the question that what is the true role of the Charter. Prior to the decision, there was confusion on whether or not the accused outside of Ontario had the right to choose who to be tried by. The court believed that being tried by a jury is a benefit that the accused is entitled to and not a punishment. As seen in history, individuals have praised the jury for being a privilege and a civil liberty that common law has to offer. Civil juries have also been described as an instrument of justice. The court referred back to a quote from a well-known judge named William Blackstone during the Elizabethan era who described the jury as “the glory of English law” and “the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy.” Secondly, the court referred to the Singer v. United States case which was also very similar to the R. v. Turpin. Singer was charged for 30 accounts of criminal mail fraud. The defendant claimed that he had absolute right to choose to be tried with judge alone if a trial was for his advantage. After an extensive exhaustion of many sources and legal precedents, the court found that nowhere in the history of common law does it state that defendants should have the right to choose the method of their trial in a murder trial. The final decision in the Singer v. United States case also stated that the defenders only right concerning the method of trial is to be tried by both a jury and judge. This gave The Supreme Court of Canada enough evidence to conclude their decision that appellants had no right to choose who to be tried by. After the decision, this case became a permanent legal precedent for any other

criminal case in which the individuals claim to have the right to choose the method of their trial and therefore, the R. v. Turpin case had a significant impact on Canadian law.
Another crucial issue that this case encountered was that does not allowing citizens to choose who to be tried by violate their individual rights as citizens. The role of the Charter is to protect all of the accused until proven guilty. In this case, the accused felt that not being granted the ability to choose to be tried by judge alone discriminates their rights as citizens. Since 1982, the Charter’s first priority is to protect all individuals in society. However, it has failed to protect aboriginal women in society and the Charter ended up discriminating individual rights in the Indian act. This can be closely related to the R. v. Turpin case because the accused claimed that if they were not granted to choose the method of their trial under the Charter, then the Charter simply does not protect their individual rights. A key argument that the accused held was that section 429 and 430 of the Criminal Code discriminates their rights as it violates section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Afterwards, the accused appealed that under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equality comes before law. The justice system in Alberta allows the accused to choose who to be tried by, and this privilege is not given to the accused in any other provinces. The accused in this case felt that if the justice system did not grant them with the right to choose be tried by, the accused within Alberta have an advantage and therefore, equality is not served. This argument was disregarded by the Supreme Court because of their evidence based on the legal precedent case Singer v. United States. The accused also argued that not being granted by the ability to choose who to be tried by is not only a lost privilege but also discrimination. The Law Reform Commission of Canada recognized that the jury functions both as a protection for the accused and its sole purpose if to benefit society in its educative and legitimizing roles and therefore, did not discriminate their rights.