Jury instructions

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Royz, 2009 SCC 13 makes clear the principle that, while a trial judge must ensure a jury understands the evidence heard, that does not mean the trial judge must mechanically recite what the witnesses said. Indeed, to merely repeat the evidence given would be a mistake because the Court must distill the evidence so that the jury can make a sensible decision:

[2] At issue is the application to particular facts of the general principle governing jury instructions set out in Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495, at pp. 497-98:

The rule which has been laid down, and consistently followed is that in a jury trial the presiding judge must, except in rare cases where it would be needless to do so, review the substantial parts of the evidence, and give the jury the theory of the defence, so that they may appreciate the value and effect of that evidence, and how the law is to be applied to the facts as they find them.

To this should be added what was said in R. v. Jacquard, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314, by Chief Justice Lamer: “I cannot emphasize enough that the role of a trial judge in charging the jury is to decant and simplify” (para. 13). Brevity is the soul of a jury charge that actually helps the jurors to focus on their job provided its members are given an adequate understanding of the relationship between the essential elements of the evidence and the issues they are required to resolve.