R. v. Coughlan

R. v. Coughlan

Post-charge delay of 20 months and 13 days raised a s.11(b) issue; there was no waiver by the accused; some delay was attributable to legitimate disclosure and institutional constraints and one adjournment was justified by a witness's medical condition, but the Crown failed to adequately justify the February 18, 2003 adjournment (withheld relevant information about the witness's travel), thereby depriving the court and defence of material information; prejudice to the accused was properly inferred; balancing societal interest against accused's right favored the accused; stay of proceedings under s.24(1) was ordered for the charges arising September 14, 2001 (Information sworn October 18,...

Citation
2003 NSPC 25
Parties
Crown (prosecution): Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/applicant (defendant): Conrad Frank Coughlan
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal (impaired Driving) / Pre Trial S.11(b) Charter Application Seeking Stay Under S.24(1)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings ordered
Legal Topics
Delay/s.11(b) Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time, Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1), Disclosure/accident Reconstruction Report, Adjournments and Institutional Delay, Prejudice Inference
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Procedural Law Delay/s.11(b) Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Disclosure/accident Reconstruction Report Adjournments and Institutional Delay +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown (prosecution)

Conrad Frank Coughlan

Accused/applicant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal (impaired Driving) / Pre Trial S.11(b) Charter Application Seeking Stay Under S.24(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's s.11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings under s.24(1) is the appropriate remedy
  3. 3 Whether Crown adjournment requests were justified and adequately explained

Ratio Decidendi

Post-charge delay of 20 months and 13 days raised a s.11(b) issue; there was no waiver by the accused; some delay was attributable to legitimate disclosure and institutional constraints and one adjournment was justified by a witness's medical condition, but the Crown failed to adequately justify the February 18, 2003 adjournment (withheld relevant information about the witness's travel), thereby depriving the court and defence of material information; prejudice to the accused was properly inferred; balancing societal interest against accused's right favored the accused; stay of proceedings under s.24(1) was ordered for the charges arising September 14, 2001 (Information sworn October 18,...

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings ordered

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter in respect of the charges under s.254(5) and s.253(a) of the Criminal Code arising on September 14, 2001 (Information sworn October 18, 2001)