WRT motive .. from an old precedent of Lewis v. The Queen:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2635/index.do
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Accepting the term "motive" in a criminal law sense as meaning "ulterior intention", it is possible, upon the authorities, to formulate the following
propositions: (1) As evidence, motive is always relevant and hence evi*dence of motive is admissible. (2) Motive is no part of the crime and is legally irrelevant to criminal responsibility. It is not an essential element of the prosecution's case as a matter of law. (3)
Proved absence of motive is always an important fact in favour of the accused and
[Page 822]
ordinarily worthy of note in a charge to the jury. (4) Conversely, proved presence of motive may be an impor*tant factual ingredient in the Crown's case, notably on the issues of identity and intention, when the evidence is purely circumstantial. (5) Motive is therefore always a question of fact and evidence and the necessity of referring to motive in the charge to the jury falls within the general duty of the trial judge "to not only outline the theories of the prosecution and defence but to give the jury matters of evidence essential in arriving at a just conclusion." (6) Each case will turn on its own unique set of circumstances. The issue of motive is always a matter of degree.
Applying the foregoing propositions to the present case, motive was not proven as part of the Crown's case, nor was absence of motive proven by the defence. There was, therefore, no clear obligation in law to charge on motive. Whether or not to charge became, therefore, a matter of judgment for the trial judge and his judgment should not be lightly reversed.
Every summing-up must be regarded in the light of the conduct of the trial and the questions which have been raised by the counsel for the prosecution and for the defence respectively: per Alverstone L.C.J. in R. v. Stoddart (1909), 2 Cr. App. R. 217 at p. 246. Counsel at trial did not ask the judge to instruct on motive, and the judge obviously felt that such instruction was not called for, in the light of the entire trial.
The necessity of charging a jury on motive may be looked upon as a continuum, at one end of which are cases where the evidence as to identity of the murderer is purely circumstantial and proof of motive on the part of the Crown so essential that reference must be made to motive in charging the jury. At the other end of the continuum, and requiring a charge on motive, is the case where there is proved absence of motive and this may become of great significance as a matter in favour of the accused. Between these two end points in the continuum there are cases where the necessity to charge on motive depends upon the course of the trial and the nature and probative value of the evidence adduced. In these cases, a substantial discretion must be left to the trial judge.
In the present case any instruction on motive would have had to make clear that there was no obligation on the Crown to prove motive ...
<bbm>
