R. v. Clare

R. v. Clare

The court found the total delay (approx. 50 months) was prima facie unreasonable, apportioned significant portions of delay to Crown disclosure failures, defence counsel unavailability and institutional scheduling, found prejudice to the accused arising from late disclosure and mistrial, held there was a breach of s.11(b) and ordered a stay of proceedings under s.24(1).

Citation
2014 NSSC 388
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Stephen Patrick Clare
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay Application / Pre Trial Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Following Alleged S.11(b) Breach
Outcome
Proceedings stayed; accused discharged.
Legal Topics
Charter S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay, Stay of Proceedings S.24(1), Disclosure Obligations, Preliminary Inquiry and Committal, Mistrial Due to Late Disclosure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Family Law (context) Charter S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay Stay of Proceedings S.24(1) Disclosure Obligations Preliminary Inquiry and Committal +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Stephen Patrick Clare

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay Application / Pre Trial Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Following Alleged S.11(b) Breach

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the four plus year delay violated s.11(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings under s.24(1) is the appropriate remedy
  3. 3 How delay should be apportioned among Crown, defence and systemic causes

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the total delay (approx. 50 months) was prima facie unreasonable, apportioned significant portions of delay to Crown disclosure failures, defence counsel unavailability and institutional scheduling, found prejudice to the accused arising from late disclosure and mistrial, held there was a breach of s.11(b) and ordered a stay of proceedings under s.24(1).

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed; accused discharged.

Orders

  • Judicial stay entered of all outstanding charges pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter; Mr. Clare discharged