R. v. Butler

R. v. Butler

A designation that lacks identification of the charge(s), dates of alleged offences or particulars of the matters for which counsel is designated is deficient; the court may refuse to accept such a designation because it must be satisfied counsel has authority to deal with the specific charges before it.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 NSSC 284
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Mitchell Lawrence Butler
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code) / Pre‑trial Arraignment/administrative Appearance; Dispute Over Designation of Counsel Under S.650.01
Outcome
Designation of counsel not accepted by the court because it did not identify the charges, dates or particulars of the matters for which counsel was designated.
Legal Topics
Designation of Counsel, Section 650.01 Criminal Code, Authority of Counsel to Appear in Absence of Accused, Court's Discretion to Require Particulars
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Procedural Law Practice and Procedure Designation of Counsel Section 650.01 Criminal Code Authority of Counsel to Appear in Absence of Accused Court's Discretion to Require Particulars

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

Mitchell Lawrence Butler

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code) / Pre‑trial Arraignment/administrative Appearance; Dispute Over Designation of Counsel Under S.650.01

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What information is required in a designation of counsel under s.650.01 of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether a designation that omits the charges, dates or particulars is sufficient to permit counsel to appear for the accused in the accused's absence
  3. 3 Whether the court may require particulars to be satisfied that counsel has authority to act

Ratio Decidendi

A designation that lacks identification of the charge(s), dates of alleged offences or particulars of the matters for which counsel is designated is deficient; the court may refuse to accept such a designation because it must be satisfied counsel has authority to deal with the specific charges before it.

Court Disposition

Designation of counsel not accepted by the court because it did not identify the charges, dates or particulars of the matters for which counsel was designated.

Orders

  • Refusal to accept the proposed designation of counsel under s.650.01