R. v. J.E.L.

R. v. J.E.L.

Although a significant portion of the Oct 3 videotaped interview was lost, the Crown explained the loss as accidental and not due to unacceptable negligence; coupled with available partial tape, the interviewers' memories/notes and a fully recorded subsequent interview containing substantially similar disclosures, the accused was not demonstrably prejudiced in his ability to make full answer and defence under s.7 or deprived of a fair trial under s.11(d); therefore the stay application was denied.

Citation
2004 NSPC 21
Parties
Accused: J. E. L.; Crown: R.; Complainant: R. C.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Pre Trial Voir Dire Stay Application Under S.24 of the Charter
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings denied
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Lost Evidence, Abuse of Process, Section 7 Charter Right to Make Full Answer and Defence, Section 11(d) Fair Trial, Stay of Proceedings, Videotaped Interview of Child Complainant
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Procedural Law Disclosure Obligations Lost Evidence Abuse of Process Section 7 Charter Right to Make Full Answer and Defence +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. E. L.

Accused

R.

Crown

R. C.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Pre Trial Voir Dire Stay Application Under S.24 of the Charter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown failed to disclose full videotaped interview (Oct 3, 2003)
  2. 2 Whether loss of videotape amounts to abuse of process or breach of s.7/ s.11(d)
  3. 3 Whether the loss resulted from unacceptable negligence or was accidental

Ratio Decidendi

Although a significant portion of the Oct 3 videotaped interview was lost, the Crown explained the loss as accidental and not due to unacceptable negligence; coupled with available partial tape, the interviewers' memories/notes and a fully recorded subsequent interview containing substantially similar disclosures, the accused was not demonstrably prejudiced in his ability to make full answer and defence under s.7 or deprived of a fair trial under s.11(d); therefore the stay application was denied.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings denied

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings denied
  • Publication ban under s.486(3) of the Criminal Code maintained