Last time, we looked at the share, year by year, of the Court’s civil docket accounted for by decisions which brought a dissent at the Court of Appeal.  Today, we’re looking at the data for the criminal docket.

The Court decided fifteen criminal cases in 1990 and 1991 which were divided below.  The Court decided eleven divided cases in 1992, but only one in 1993.  The Court decided ten divided cases in 1994.  The Court decided three divided cases in 1995, one in 1996, six in 1997, five in 1998, seven in 1999, six in 2000, five in 2001, seven in 2002 and nine in 2003.

In 2004 and the two years following, the number of divided criminal cases increased – to 18 in 2004, 16 in 2005 and eleven in 2006.  The Court decided eight divided cases in 2007, thirteen in 2008, six in 2009, eighteen in 2010 and twelve in 2011.  The Court decided nine divided criminal cases in 2012, five in 2013, eight in 2014, eleven in 2015 and seven per year in 2016 and 2017.

So how much of the total criminal docket was accounted for by divided decisions below?  In 1990, 21.74% of the Court’s criminal docket was divided below.  In 1991, 25.86% was.  In 1992, only 11.96% were, and in 1993, the fraction fell to 2.33%.  In 1994, 15.38% of the Court’s criminal docket was divided below, but the share fell to 3.8% in 1995, 1.85% in 1996, 9.52% in 1997 and 6.94% in 1998.  In 1999, 13.21% of the Court’s criminal docket was divided below.  In 2000, 6.98% was, and in 2001, the share was 8.62%.  In 2002, 10% of the criminal docket was divided below.  In 2003, 13.85% of the docket was divided below, but the share was 29.03% in 2004, 27.12% in 2005, 22% in 2006, 28.57% in 2008 and 26% in 2008.  The divided share fell to 11.54% in 2009, but rose to 32.73% in 2010, 25% in 2011 and 27.28% in 2012.  The share fell to 13.16% in 2013, but that was a one year fall.  In 2014, 23.53% of the criminal docket was divided decisions below.  In 2015, exactly one third of the criminal docket was divided below.  In 2016, 20% of the docket was divided and 20.59% was in 2017.

Join us back here next time as we continue our analysis of the Court’s decision making.

Image courtesy of Flickr by David Ohmer (no changes).