R. v. Simpson

R. v. Simpson

The April 8 interview passage relied on by the Crown was inadmissible because it directly relied upon and effectively used the accused's prior testimony at a bail hearing, thereby infringing his s.13 Charter right; confronting the accused with protected prior testimony and eliciting a response is equivalent to using that testimony and must be excluded, and without that evidence the Crown presented no case and a directed verdict of acquittal was required.

Citation
2012 NSSC 66
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Dean Allison Simpson
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement); Crown Withdrew Evidence; Directed Verdict of Acquittal Granted
Outcome
Statement excluded under s.13 of the Charter; directed verdict of acquittal granted (Crown presented no further evidence)
Legal Topics
Charter S.13 (right Against Use of Testimonial Incriminating Evidence), Self Incrimination, Admissibility of Statements, Voluntariness of Statements, Directed Verdict/acquittal
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Charter S.13 (right Against Use of Testimonial Incriminating Evidence) Self Incrimination Admissibility of Statements Voluntariness of Statements Directed Verdict/acquittal

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Dean Allison Simpson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement); Crown Withdrew Evidence; Directed Verdict of Acquittal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the April 8 statement was voluntary and admissible
  2. 2 Whether s.13 of the Charter barred use of prior testimony given at a bail hearing in subsequent criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether derivative evidence (confrontation with prior protected testimony) is prohibited by s.13

Ratio Decidendi

The April 8 interview passage relied on by the Crown was inadmissible because it directly relied upon and effectively used the accused's prior testimony at a bail hearing, thereby infringing his s.13 Charter right; confronting the accused with protected prior testimony and eliciting a response is equivalent to using that testimony and must be excluded, and without that evidence the Crown presented no case and a directed verdict of acquittal was required.

Court Disposition

Statement excluded under s.13 of the Charter; directed verdict of acquittal granted (Crown presented no further evidence)

Orders

  • The April 8, 2011 statement is excluded pursuant to s.13 of the Charter
  • Directed verdict of acquittal entered for Dean Allison Simpson