R. v. Andrews

R. v. Andrews

Although the RCMP's handling of the videotape was negligent and thus a breach of s.7 occurred, the Crown has alternative evidence (a subsequent, longer videotaped statement, contemporaneous notes and available witnesses) and the accused has not established irreparable prejudice at this stage; therefore a stay is not warranted now and the application is dismissed without prejudice, with the stay able to be renewed after evidence is heard.

Citation
2009 NSSC 408
Parties
Provincial Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Floyd Alexander Andrews
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Offences: Invitation to Sexual Touching; Uttering Threats) / Pre Trial Application for Stay of Proceedings; Decision on Stay Application
Outcome
Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed at this stage (breach found but stay not warranted); matter to proceed to trial; stay may be renewed after evidence is heard.
Legal Topics
Charter S.7 Right to Make Full Answer and Defence, Disclosure Obligations (stinchcombe), Lost/missing Evidence, Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Charter S.7 Right to Make Full Answer and Defence Disclosure Obligations (stinchcombe) Lost/missing Evidence Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Provincial Crown

Floyd Alexander Andrews

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sexual Offences: Invitation to Sexual Touching; Uttering Threats) / Pre Trial Application for Stay of Proceedings; Decision on Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loss of the complainant's 2006 videotaped statement requires a stay because the accused cannot make full answer and defence
  2. 2 Whether the Crown and police explanation for the loss satisfies the Stinchcombe standard or constitutes unacceptable negligence or abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether available alternative evidence cures the prejudice caused by the lost tape and whether a stay is an appropriate remedy at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RCMP's handling of the videotape was negligent and thus a breach of s.7 occurred, the Crown has alternative evidence (a subsequent, longer videotaped statement, contemporaneous notes and available witnesses) and the accused has not established irreparable prejudice at this stage; therefore a stay is not warranted now and the application is dismissed without prejudice, with the stay able to be renewed after evidence is heard.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed at this stage (breach found but stay not warranted); matter to proceed to trial; stay may be renewed after evidence is heard.

Orders

  • Stay application dismissed without prejudice
  • Proceed to trial as scheduled; accused may renew stay application after evidence is heard