Editing Jury nullification (section)

===Canada===
Although extremely rare, jury nullification occurs in Canada. As the prosecution has powers to [[Double jeopardy#Canada|appeal the resulting acquittal]], it lacks the finality found in the United States. However, the Crown cannot appeal on grounds of an unreasonable acquittal although it can appeal on errors of law. In ''[[R. v. Latimer]]'', 2001 SCC 1,<ref name= RvLatimer2001/> the [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] discussed jury nullification and indicated that it is a duty of the presiding justice to try to prevent it from occurring. Perhaps the most famous cases of jury nullification in Canada were the various trials of [[Henry Morgentaler]], who openly operated a private abortion clinic in violation of the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Repeated attempts at prosecuting Morgentaler resulted in acquittals at jury trials in the 1970s and the 1980s. In the 1988 Supreme Court case, ''[[R. v. Morgentaler]]'', 1988 SCR 30,<ref name="RvMorgentaler1988" /> a nullification was appealed all the way to the country's highest court, which struck down the law in question. In ''[[obiter dicta]]'', [[Chief Justice Dickson]] wrote:

{{quote|The contrary principle contended for by Mr. Manning, that a jury may be encouraged to ignore a law it does not like, could lead to gross inequities. One accused could be convicted by a jury who supported the existing law, while another person indicted for the same offence could be acquitted by a jury who, with reformist zeal, wished to express disapproval of the same law. Moreover, a jury could decide that although the law pointed to a conviction, the jury would simply refuse to apply the law to an accused for whom it had sympathy. Alternatively, a jury who feels antipathy towards an accused might convict despite a law which points to acquittal. To give a harsh, but I think telling example, a jury fueled by the passions of racism could be told that they need not apply the law against murder to a white man who had killed a black man. Such a possibility need only be stated to reveal the potentially frightening implications of Mr. Manning's assertions....

It is no doubt true that juries have a de facto power to disregard the law as stated to the jury by the judge. We cannot enter the jury room. The jury is never called upon to explain the reasons which lie behind a verdict. It may even be true that in some limited circumstances the private decision of a jury to refuse to apply the law will constitute, in the words of a Law Reform Commission of Canada working paper, "the citizen's ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law" (Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 27, The Jury in Criminal Trials (1980)). But recognizing this reality is a far cry from suggesting that counsel may encourage a jury to ignore a law they do not support or to tell a jury that it has a right to do so.}}

The Supreme Court in 2006 issued a decision, ''R. v. Krieger'', 2006 SCC 47,<ref name=RvKrieger2006/> which confirmed that juries in Canada have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. The decision stated that "juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law—but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course".<ref name=RvKrieger2006/>