|
''R v Drybones'', () S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the ''Canadian Bill of Rights'' "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates."〔 Brian Dickson, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Context and Evolution" in (eds.) Beaudoin, G-A., & Mendes, E, ''The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'', Third Edition (Scarborough: Carswell, 1996) at 1:6〕 Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the ''Indian Act'' (which prohibited "Indians" from being intoxicated off of a reserve) is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the ''Canadian Bill of Rights''. Prior to this decision there had been much debate on the application of the ''Bill of Rights'' to an infringing statute. One perspective saw the ''Bill of Rights'' as an interpretive aid. The other perspective saw it as statute that constrained the supremacy of Parliament, rendering irreconcilable federal enactments of no force or effect. After this case, the overriding power that the Court held flows from the ''Canadian Bill of Rights'' was never used, and has since never been reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a consequence of this case, section 94 was repealed by Parliament in 1971. ==Background== On April 8, 1967, shortly after 11:00pm, Joseph Drybones was discovered intoxicated on the floor of the lobby of the Old Stope Hotel in Yellowknife. On April 10, 1967, Drybones, representing himself without counsel, pleaded guilty to being an Indian, intoxicated off a reserve in contravention of section 94(b) of the ''Indian Act''.〔''R. v. Drybones'' (1967), 60 W.W.R. 321 at 321-322 (N.W.T.Co. Ct.).〕 Drybones was convicted of this offence by Justice of the Peace Thompson and was sentenced to pay a fine of $10 or three days imprisonment. On April 27, 1967, Drybones gave notice that he was appealing the conviction. In a motion before the Northwest Territories Territorial Court, counsel for Drybones argued that since their client did not understand English, he did not understand the nature of the proceedings, rendering his guilty plea invalid and subject to withdrawal. The motion was granted and the guilty plea was revoked by Drybones, the Court ordering a ''trial de novo''. In the ''trial de novo'', the crown called six witnesses, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Constables and the wife of the hotel manager who had found Drybones. The crown also produced Joe Sangris as one of their witnesses, a former chief and leader of the Indian village at Yellowknife for 16 years. Mr. Sangris testified that he had known Drybones from his birth, as well as his wife and his father. Mr. Sangris also testified that Drybones received treaty money once a year. Another crown witness included David George Greyeyes, once the regional director of Indian affairs. Mr. Greyeyes was the officer charged with the maintenance of Indian records, contractual obligations and the execution of federal treaties involving Indians. Mr. Greyeyes produced official records of a Mr. Drybones, married to Madeline Crapeau with no children.〔''R. v. Drybones'', ''supra'' note 2 at 323.〕 Both Mr. Greyeyes and Mr. Sangris also testified that there were no Indian reserves in the Northwest Territories.〔''R. v. Drybones'', ''supra'' note 2 at 324.〕 Counsel for Drybones argued that the Crown failed to prove that Drybones was an Indian within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the ''Indian Act'', which requires that Indian be a member of an Indian band; therefore, Drybones could not be convicted under sections 94(b) of the ''Indian Act''. It was also argued that since there are no reserves in the Northwest territories, Section 94(b) of the ''Indian Act'' is inapplicable to such cases in the Northwest Territories. Finally, counsel for Drybones contended that if all the elements of a crime had been committed, the combined effect of sections 94(b) and 96 of the ''Indian Act'' violated Section 1(b) of the ''Canadian Bill of Rights'' because the legal sanction is more severe and more intrusive on account of race, than the equivalent sections of the ''Liquor Ordinance'' that apply to non-Indians.〔''R. v. Drybones'', ''supra'' note 2 at 328; ''The Liquor Ordinance'', RONWT, 1956, c. 60.〕 That distinction, counsel argued, is discrimination on account of race and colour, in contravention of the appellant's equality before the law under Section 1(b) of the ''Canadian Bill of Rights'' and, therefore, Drybones should be acquitted. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Drybones」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|