Case Summary of R. v. Williams [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 - Legal Studies

This case study summarizes R. v. Williams [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128, a Supreme Court of Canada case concerning racial bias in jury selection. Victor Daniel Williams, an aboriginal, was accused of robbery and challenged the jury selection based on potential racial bias under section 638 of the Criminal Code. The initial judge allowed the challenge, but a mistrial was declared by the Crown. Subsequent challenges by Williams were rejected, leading to a guilty verdict. The central issue on appeal was whether Williams had the right to challenge jurors for potential prejudice against aboriginal people. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial, holding that even a slight potential of racial bias could affect the trial's fairness. The analysis includes facts, issues, judgment, and dissenting opinions, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case's legal implications.

0 | P a g e
Introduction to Legal Studies
R. v. Williams [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128

1 | P a g e
1. Name of Case and
Citation
R. v. Williams [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128
Lexum. (n.d.). R. v. Williams. Retrieved from https://scc-
csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1631/index.do
2. Type and Level of
Case
The Supreme Court of Canada on an appeal from a
judgment, of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Delivered by
McLachlin J.
3. Facts In 1993, a suit was filed against Victor Daniel Williams, an
aboriginal, in which he was accused for robbing a Victoria pizza
parlour. When this case was brought before the court, Williams
pleaded not guilty. The court ordered a trial on this case through
judge and jury. After beginning of the trial, Williams requested
from the court that the jury members should be changed based
on racial bias under section 638 of the Criminal Code (Sinclair,
2012). An accused have the right to make any number of
challenges based on the fact that a juror is not indifferent
between the queen and the accused provided under this
section. Based on this section, Williams requested before the
court that the jurors should be changed because they are likely
to give their judgement based on racial bias. The request made
by Mr Williams was allowed by the judge Hutchison J. A mistrial
was applied by the Crown based on the fact that procedural
error includes in the selection of the jury members.
After the selection of jurors in the second trial, a motion was
again filed by Mr Williams in which he once again challenged the
racial bias of jurors. This motion was heard by the judge Esson C.
J. who agreed with the application of Mr Williams. He provided
that the evidence did support the fact that the natives in the
court have continued to be object of bias and prejudice in the
country (Jochelson et al., 2013). However, he rejected the
application of Mr Williams by providing that the widespread
prejudice that is against the aboriginal people in a community is
not sufficient enough to challenge for cause and chose to
dismiss the motion filed by Mr Williams. Vickers J rejected the
third application made by Mr Williams to challenge the potential
of jurors based on racial bias. The jury found Mr Williams guilty
of robbing a Victorian pizza parlour. Mr Williams appealed to
the Court of Appeal by raising the issue of challenges for these
cause.
4. Issue of Appeal In this case, the main issue on the appeal was raised by Mr
Williams regarding whether he has the right to challenge the
potential of jurors who are selected to entertain her trial in
order to determine whether those jurors possess any prejudice
against aboriginal people which may lead to impartiality in their
decision making. Another issue was whether there is enough
evidence present in the case based on which widespread bias in
against the aboriginal people of community that can affect the
partiality of the jurors.

2 | P a g e
5. Judgement The appeal made by Mr Williams was allowed, and a new
trial was ordered by the Supreme Court. It was held by the court
that the trial judge should have allowed Mr Williams to
challenge the potential of jurors because a slight potential of
racial biases resulted in affected the fairness of the trial.
6. Dissenting
Opinion
In the appeal, the judge Macfarlane J.A agreed with the
statement made by Esson C.J. that there is no need to be
stronger evidence which is enough to support the motion made
by Mr Williams. He provided that just general bias in the
community is enough to change the jurors. The appeal of Mr
Williams was dismissed by the majority, and the conviction was
upheld by the Court of Appeal.

3 | P a g e
References
Jochelson, R., Bertrand, M. I., Lindsay, R. C. L., Smith, A. M., Ventola, M., & Kalmet, N.
(2013). Revisiting Representativeness in the Manitoban Criminal Jury. Man. LJ, 37,
365.
Lexum. (n.d.). R. v. Williams. Retrieved from
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1631/index.do
Sinclair, R. (2016). The Indigenous Child Removal System in Canada: An examination of legal
decision-making and racial bias. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 11(2), 8-18.