R. v. West

R. v. West

Although certain relevant materials were missing or had been destroyed and the Crown breached its disclosure duty in respect of those items, the failures were not intentional, the Crown either disclosed or explained available material, the missing items did not prejudice the accused's ability to make full answer and defence, and therefore a stay of proceedings under s.7 of the Charter was not an appropriate remedy.

Citation
2006 NSSC 40
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: William Fenwick West
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal (armed Robbery; Disclosure Application) / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.7 Charter; Disclosure Hearing During Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; no stay of proceedings ordered.
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Disclosure Obligations, Lost or Destroyed Evidence, Duty to Preserve Evidence, Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Police Procedure Charter S.7 Disclosure Obligations Lost or Destroyed Evidence Duty to Preserve Evidence +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

William Fenwick West

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (armed Robbery; Disclosure Application) / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.7 Charter; Disclosure Hearing During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown non-disclosure or loss/destruction of evidence breached s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the Crown met its duty to preserve or to explain missing evidence
  3. 3 Whether the missing or destroyed evidence prejudiced the accused's ability to make full answer and defence

Ratio Decidendi

Although certain relevant materials were missing or had been destroyed and the Crown breached its disclosure duty in respect of those items, the failures were not intentional, the Crown either disclosed or explained available material, the missing items did not prejudice the accused's ability to make full answer and defence, and therefore a stay of proceedings under s.7 of the Charter was not an appropriate remedy.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no stay of proceedings ordered.

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings dismissed.