Read on Twitter
Mr. Yebes, of R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168 infamy, has finally been acquitted after a new trial had been ordered by the Minister of Justice: https://theprovince.com/news/ian-mulgrew-surrey-father-acquitted-decades-after-double-murder-conviction/wcm/31a874e3-cb9f-4d7d-8a7d-51fa6721fb7b.
He joins a growing list of miscarriages of justice, but his case is particularly ironic.
He joins a growing list of miscarriages of justice, but his case is particularly ironic.
R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168, remains a binding authority on unreasonable verdicts. That the Yebes test allowed Mr. Yebes unreasonable verdict to stand is unconscionable. The Supreme Court, in all fairness, should address this. Apologies and critical reflections are in order.
We cannot as lawyers refer to it indifferently either. The injustice it permitted needs to put at the forefront. R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168, should not be allowed to stand on its own, without a reminder that a jury convicted an innocent man and that courts stood by it.
I suggest adding a parenthetical to the case, e.g., (despite the holding of the Court that the conviction was not unreasonable, Mr. Yebes was ultimately acquitted after a new trial was ordered by the Minister of Justice. The Crown conceded that his conviction was improper.)
