R. v. Budge

R. v. Budge

The court concluded the late disclosure amounted to late disclosure only and, on the evidence, did not demonstrate negligent or deliberate Crown misconduct causing prejudicial impairment of the accused's s.7 right to make full answer and defence; the defence could use the disclosed material in cross-examination and the case does not meet the high threshold for a stay, so the Charter motion is dismissed but may be renewed if circumstances materially change.

Citation
2012 NSPC 69
Parties
Crown (prosecution): Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant: Sandra Budge
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Assault (s.266(b) Criminal Code) / Trial in Progress; Charter Motion Heard During Trial
Outcome
Charter motion dismissed; no stay of proceedings granted
Legal Topics
Charter Section 7, Disclosure Obligations, Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Right to Make Full Answer and Defence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Section 7 Disclosure Obligations Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings Right to Make Full Answer and Defence

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown (prosecution)

Sandra Budge

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Assault (s.266(b) Criminal Code) / Trial in Progress; Charter Motion Heard During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late/non-disclosure by Crown violated s.7 Charter right to make full answer and defence
  2. 2 Whether Crown conduct amounted to abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings
  3. 3 What remedy, if any, is appropriate for late disclosure during trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded the late disclosure amounted to late disclosure only and, on the evidence, did not demonstrate negligent or deliberate Crown misconduct causing prejudicial impairment of the accused's s.7 right to make full answer and defence; the defence could use the disclosed material in cross-examination and the case does not meet the high threshold for a stay, so the Charter motion is dismissed but may be renewed if circumstances materially change.

Court Disposition

Charter motion dismissed; no stay of proceedings granted

Orders

  • Charter application dismissed
  • No stay of proceedings ordered