## Facts

- Imre Finta was a senior officer in the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, an armed paramilitary force active in Hungary during World War II.
- During the war, the Gendarmerie took part in rounding up Hungarian Jews and sending them to concentration camps where many were killed.
- The allegations concerned events connected to the detention and deportation of Jews, including that they were held in filthy and degrading conditions.
- The allegations also included that detainees were robbed of their property before deportation.
- Jews were allegedly packed into train cars so tightly that people could not sit, and bodies could not be removed during transport.
- Finta admitted he was present at the relevant location(s), but maintained he lacked real authority and was acting under the direction of the German SS.
- After immigrating to Canada and becoming a citizen, Finta was charged in Canada decades later with offences framed through Canada’s Criminal Code war-crimes/crimes-against-humanity provisions, relying on underlying domestic offences (including unlawful confinement and robbery) tied to an international-law characterization.
- A jury acquitted Finta. The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the acquittal. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

## Issues

1. Whether Canada’s Criminal Code provisions permitting prosecution in Canada for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed abroad were constitutionally valid, including against Charter challenges (including ss. 7, 11, 12, and 15).
2. Whether the long passage of time between the WWII events and the laying of charges violated Charter s. 11(b) (trial within a reasonable time).
3. Whether the provisions were retroactive in a way barred by Charter s. 11(g), or instead applied to conduct that was already criminal (including under international law) when committed while extending Canadian jurisdiction.
4. What mens rea the Crown had to prove for war crimes/crimes against humanity beyond the mental element for the underlying domestic offences.
5. Whether the trial judge’s charge and related rulings (including treatment of acting under orders/lawful authority) contained legal error justifying appellate intervention in a jury acquittal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown’s appeal and left the acquittals in place.
- The Court rejected the argument that the decades-long pre-charge interval, by itself, established a Charter s. 11(b) breach; the s. 11(b) period runs from the laying of the charge, not from the time of the alleged conduct.
- The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Criminal Code war-crimes/crimes-against-humanity scheme and rejected the Charter attacks advanced on the appeal.
- The Court treated the international-law characterization (whether the proven acts amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity within the statutory framework) as a matter for the judge, while the jury’s role remained to decide the historical facts and the elements of the underlying offences.
- On mens rea, the Court held the Crown had to prove not only the mental element of the underlying Canadian offences, but also that the accused knew the factual circumstances that placed the conduct in the war-crimes/crimes-against-humanity setting.
- The Court concluded there was no legal error requiring a new trial, and the jury could reasonably have acquitted on the record and the instructions given.

## Legal Principles

- Charter s. 11(b) addresses delay after the criminal process is engaged by the laying of a charge; the mere passage of decades before charges, without more, is not measured under s. 11(b).
- Parliament may confer Canadian jurisdiction over conduct committed abroad and link domestic offences to war crimes/crimes against humanity where the conduct was criminal at the time under the relevant legal standards, without violating Charter s. 11(g).
- In prosecutions under Canada’s war-crimes/crimes-against-humanity provisions, the Crown must prove the elements (including mens rea) of the underlying domestic offence and the accused’s knowledge of the facts that make the conduct part of a war-crime or crime-against-humanity context.
- Acting under orders or claimed lawful authority is not a blanket excuse for participation in war crimes or crimes against humanity; it may matter to the analysis only within the limits set by criminal law and the accused’s knowledge of what was being done.
- Appellate courts show strong restraint before setting aside jury acquittals; absent material legal error that could have affected the verdict, an acquittal stands even in difficult, historical prosecutions.

## Conclusion

Regina v. Finta held that Canada could prosecute WWII-era war crimes and crimes against humanity committed abroad under its Criminal Code scheme, that pre-charge delay did not breach Charter s. 11(b), and that the Crown must prove both the underlying offence and the accused’s knowledge of the contextual facts; applying those standards, the Supreme Court refused to disturb the jury’s acquittal.


Regina v. Finta, 104 ILR 285 (1994)