Regina v. Lindstrom

Regina v. Lindstrom

The two counts were contradictory (alleging both fishing with a licence and fishing without a licence arising from the same incident), which prevented the accused from making full answer and defence; the proper remedy is to require the Crown to elect between the inconsistent charges and stay the alternative count....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 631
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Regina; Respondent/petitioner: Leonard Calvin Lindstrom
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Provincial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; Provincial Court finding that the counts were contradictory is upheld
Legal Topics
Contradictory Counts, Stay of Proceedings, Election by Crown, Information Quashed, Jurisdiction to Amend Information
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Fisheries Law Indigenous/aboriginal Law Procedural Law Contradictory Counts Stay of Proceedings Election by Crown Information Quashed +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant/respondent

Leonard Calvin Lindstrom

Respondent/petitioner

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Provincial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two counts alleging mutually inconsistent facts (fishing with a licence and fishing without a licence) are contradictory and therefore prevent the accused from making full answer and defence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to amend the information or otherwise deal with contradictory counts
  3. 3 Proper remedy when counts are inconsistent (quash, stay, or require Crown election)

Ratio Decidendi

The two counts were contradictory (alleging both fishing with a licence and fishing without a licence arising from the same incident), which prevented the accused from making full answer and defence; the proper remedy is to require the Crown to elect between the inconsistent charges and stay the alternative count. The trial judge's conclusion was correct and is affirmed; appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; Provincial Court finding that the counts were contradictory is upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed