R. v. Poole

R. v. Poole

Total delay of 26.5 months was attributable to seven months neutral time due to conflict resolution, 4.5 months attributable to the Crown and fifteen months inherent to case complexity and disclosure; accused did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from the Crown-attributable delay and societal interest in trial outweighed prejudice, therefore no infringement of s.11(b) and application for judicial stay dismissed.

Citation
2008 BCSC 543
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Matthew Emerson Poole; Accused: Erin Yvonne Gerard Swales
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Indictment / Pre Trial Stay Application (s.24(1) Charter)
Outcome
Application for judicial stay dismissed; s.11(b) Charter right not breached
Legal Topics
Charter S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay, Judicial Stay S.24(1), Disclosure, Wiretap Authorizations, Direct Indictment, Pre Trial Custody
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Evidence Law Charter S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay Judicial Stay S.24(1) Disclosure Wiretap Authorizations +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Matthew Emerson Poole

Accused

Erin Yvonne Gerard Swales

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Indictment / Pre Trial Stay Application (s.24(1) Charter)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay of 26.5 months violated s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Allocation of delay among Crown, defence and neutral causes
  3. 3 Whether accused suffered prejudice from the delay sufficient to warrant a stay under s.24(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Total delay of 26.5 months was attributable to seven months neutral time due to conflict resolution, 4.5 months attributable to the Crown and fifteen months inherent to case complexity and disclosure; accused did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from the Crown-attributable delay and societal interest in trial outweighed prejudice, therefore no infringement of s.11(b) and application for judicial stay dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial stay dismissed; s.11(b) Charter right not breached

Orders

  • Application for judicial stay dismissed
  • Proceedings to continue against the accused as scheduled