Autre décision sur la doctrine du tiers innocent

R. v. Toma, 2000 BCCA 494 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[18]   Although not identified as such in the trial judge's reasons, the foundation for the Crown's case against the appellants rested on the doctrine of innocent agency.  The common law history of that doctrine and its applicability in Canada in light of the codification of the criminal law was considered by Wood J.A. in R. v. Berryman 1990 CanLII 286 (BC CA), (1990), 48 B.C.L.R. (2d) 105, 57 C.C.C. (3d) 375, 78 C.R. (3d) 376, at 110-111 (B.C.L.R.):

     In English common law, the person who caused a felony to be committed by means of the act of an innocent agent, was considered to be a principal in the first degree.  The most common examples of such cases were in connection with the crimes of forgery and false pretences. ... [I]n R. v. Palmer & Hudson (1804), 2 Leach 978, 168 E.R. 586, ... the judges, ... took the opportunity, as noted at p. 588 of E.R., to reaffirm:

...the doctrine of Mr. Justice Foster (Foster's Crown Law, 349; 1 Hale, 616), that when an innocent person is employed for a criminal purpose, the employer must be answerable...

* * *

     In R. v. Bleasdale (1848), 2 Car. & K. 765, 175 E.R. 321, the accused was convicted of stealing coal which had actually been mined and removed by his employees, Erle J. having instructed the jury that:

...if a man does, by means of an innocent agent, an act which amounts to a felony, the employer, and not the innocent agent, is the person accountable for that act.

[19]   As to whether the doctrine had survived the codification of the criminal law in Canada, Wood J.A. said, at 112-115:

     For these authorities to have application in this country, a hundred years later, it must be demonstrated that the doctrine of innocent agency survived the codification of our criminal law.

* * *

     The sole authority in which the doctrine of innocent agency has been applied in Canada is the decision of the New Brunswick Supreme Court (Appeal Division) in R. v. MacFadden (1971), 16 C.R.N.S. 251, 5 C.C.C. (2d) 204, 4 N.B.R. (2d) 59.  There the court held that he who employs an innocent agent for the purposes of transporting narcotics is himself guilty of the resulting trafficking.  A number of the ancient authorities discussed above were referred to and relied upon in reaching that decision, however, the effect of codification of the criminal law in this country does not appear to have been considered by the court.

* * *

... Glanville Williams has to say at the beginning of para. 120 of Criminal Law: The General Part, which is entitled "Innocent agents":

     The principal in the first degree need not commit the crime with his own hands; he may commit it by a mechanical device, or through an innocent agent, or in any other manner, otherwise than through a guilty agent.  An innocent agent is one who is clear of responsibility because of infancy, insanity, lack of mens rea and the like. In law he is a mere machine whose movements are regulated by the offender.     [emphasis [of Wood J.A.]]

     It is my view, supported by the authorities just referred to, that a person who commits an offence by means of an instrument "whose movements are regulated" by him, actually commits the offence himself. Thus there is no variance between the doctrine of innocent agency and the plain meaning that would seem to attach to s. 61(a) of theCriminal Code, 1892. While there have been substantial changes to that section over the years, none has affected the language used which is relevant to this issue, and I therefore conclude that what is today s. 21(1)(a) of the Criminal Code can and should be construed so as to give effect to the doctrine of innocent agency.