DISMISSAL OF JURISDICTION ARGUMENT
[Please note: The jury for this case began deliberations on May 12, 1997. The verdicts were delivered on May 20, 1997]
Filed: May 14, 1997
Registry: New Westminster
Counsel for the Crown: L. Bernard and J. Fawcus
Counsel for the Accused Mary Pena, Ronald Dionne, and Percy Rosette: S. Tate
Counsel for the Accused Grant Archie, Brent Potulicki, Trond Halle, and Joseph Ignace: G. Wool
Counsel for the Accused Flora Sampson, Edward Dick, Stuart Dick, Sheila Ignace, and Francis Dick: D. Campbell
Counsel for the Accused Glen Deneault: M. Azevedo
Unrepresented Accused Shelagh Franklin, James Pitawanakwat, Jones Ignace, Suniva Bronson, and Robert Flemming.
Place and Date of Hearing:
May 9, 1997
 The defence applies for a declaration that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the Indictment on the grounds that the alleged offences occurred on land which had not been acquired originally by the Crown from the natives by treaty or purchase.
 The Attorneys General of British Columbia and Canada apply at the outset to dismiss the application on the grounds that the point of law upon which the application is based has been determined by the British Columbia Court of Appeal and, applying the principle of stare decisis, is binding on this Court.
 The accused Deneault and Jones Ignace made the identical application to Henderson J. when this trial was pending. In reasons dated May 29, 1996, dealing with that and two similar applications, Henderson J. held as follows:
This same argument was advanced and considered in R. v. Williams and others, a decision of Cohen J., given November 12th, 1993, under registry numbers CC040029 to CC930032 inclusive. There, this Court held that the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in Delgamuukw v. The Queen  5 W.W.R. 97 provides a complete answer to the jurisdictional argument described above. The decision in the Williams case was appealed to the Court of Appeal and affirmed by that Court at  2 C.N.L.R. 229. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on July 5th, 1995. The present action must, for the reasons given in R. v. Williams, fail. I consider myself bound by that decision and unable to depart from it.
 That conclugion was confirmed by Goldie J.A. in these proceedings when dealing with an application by the accused Jones Ignace to appear personally on an appeal regarding his custodial status.
It was confirmed again in R. v. Bruce Clark, March 14, 1997, CA022880 (B.C.C.A.). Gibbs J.A., whose reasons were concurred in by MacFarlane and Proudfoot JJ.A., declined to hear the jurisdictional argument on an appeal from a contempt conviction arising in the early pre-trial stages of these proceedings, holding at p. 5:
The second reason why the Court would not hear the substantive jurisdictional argument is that it or arguments founded upon similar jurisdictional propositions have already been rejected at least twice in this Court by judgments which are binding upon this division: see Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1993), 5 W.W.R. 97; and R. v. Williams, Pascal et al. (1994), 52 B.C.C.A. 296. Furthermore, according to the appellant, the same arguments have been made on at least 25 other occasions and in other courtrooms in other jurisdictions and have been rejected every time.
 The application for a declaration that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the Indictment is dismissed.
I.B. Josephson, J.