R v Stott and Van Embden

In the case of R v Stott and Van Embden, the appellants, Stott and Van Embden, were convicted by a jury of manslaughter under the provisions of the Criminal Code. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge correctly handled the Crown's case, specifically in leaving the matter of manslaughter for the jury's consideration based on grounds other than criminal negligence. Another significant legal question was whether the trial judge correctly guided the jury concerning the interplay between sections 23(1)(b) and 289 of the Code. Additionally, the court needed to determine if a person could be held criminally liable for the death of another to whom they supplied heroin if the cause of death was a heroin overdose.

The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and found that the judge did not misdirect them in relation to the Crown's case of manslaughter. The judge correctly allowed the jury to consider manslaughter based on other grounds, not solely on criminal negligence. The court also determined that the trial judge accurately instructed the jury regarding the interaction between sections 23(1)(b) and 289 of the Code. Furthermore, the court held that a person could indeed be held liable for the death of another if they supplied the heroin that led to the fatal overdose.

Given the court's findings, the appeals against the convictions were dismissed. The appellants' arguments concerning the trial judge's handling of the case and the legal directions provided to the jury did not substantiate a ground for overturning the convictions. The legal principles applied by the trial judge were deemed correct, and thus the convictions were upheld.