Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt the instruction did not amount to reversible error.558 The case went to the Canadian Supreme Court, which granted the appeal and ordered a new trial.559 The Canadian Supreme Court noted that questions from the jury must be answered in a “careful, complete and correct manner.”560 It reasoned that, “[i]n light of the importance of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt filter to the integrity and reliability of a verdict and to the fairness of an accused’s trial, a trial judge’s instructions must be careful, lucid and scrupulously sound.”561 The Court held that in assessing whether a trial judge’s instructions on the burden of proof amount to reversible error, a court must consider: i. ii. whether the impugned instruction is inconsistent with what was said in the initial charge or is simply erroneous standing by itself; and whether, after placing the inconsistency or error in the context of the charge as a whole, there is a reasonable possibility that the jury might have been misled by those instructions into either applying a standard of proof less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt or improperly applying the burden of proof or reasonable doubt standard in arriving at their verdict.562 The Court considered the first instruction of the trial judge, when read in the context of the entire jury charge, could not have misled the jury into applying a standard of proof less than the required standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.563 It considered that, although the second impugned instruction was confusing for the jury, “in itself [it] would not be sufficient to order a new trial.”564 However, the Court considered the third instruction, which instructed the jury that they must be unanimous in their doubt before they could acquit “[was] clearly an error.”565 The Court reasoned: [W]hile a jury’s verdict had to be unanimous, jurors could arrive at that verdict by taking different routes. This instruction tainted all of the trial judge’s earlier instructions on reasonable doubt…. coupled with the previous instruction, there is a reasonable possibility that the trial judge’s erroneous instruction may have misled the jury into improperly applying the reasonable doubt standard in arriving at their verdict.566 The Court granted the appeal and ordered a new trial.567 Brydon, para. 9. Brydon, para. 25. 560 Brydon, para. 16. 561 Brydon, para. 18. 562 Brydon, para. 19. 563 Brydon, para. 21. 564 Brydon, para. 23. 565 Brydon, para. 24. 566 Brydon, para. 24-25. 567 Brydon, para. 25. 558 559 122