R. v. Lonegren

R. v. Lonegren

The Crown breached its disclosure obligation by failing to disclose a victim impact statement in its possession that revealed the complainant's mother's bias, but the non-disclosure did not, on a balance of probabilities, impair the accused's right to make full answer and defence because the relevant content was substantially known to the defence, no reasonable possibility existed that the undisclosed material affected the verdict or would have led to different lines of inquiry, and defence counsel failed to pursue disclosure with required diligence; therefore no mistrial or severance was ordered.

Citation
2009 BCSC 199
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Kirk Allvar Lonegren
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Post Conviction Application for Mistrial and Severance (after Trial, Before Sentencing)
Outcome
Application for mistrial and for severance dismissed; convictions stand and sentencing remains adjourned
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Victim Impact Statements, Mistrial, Right to Make Full Answer and Defence, Severance, Bias and Credibility
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Victims' Rights Evidence and Disclosure Disclosure Obligations Victim Impact Statements Mistrial Right to Make Full Answer and Defence +2 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Kirk Allvar Lonegren

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Post Conviction Application for Mistrial and Severance (after Trial, Before Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown breached its duty to disclose a victim impact statement in its possession
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure amounted to a breach of the accused's right to make full answer and defence under the Charter and required a mistrial or severance
  3. 3 Whether Criminal Code ss.722.1-722.2 or the Victims of Crime Act delayed the Crown's disclosure obligation

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown breached its disclosure obligation by failing to disclose a victim impact statement in its possession that revealed the complainant's mother's bias, but the non-disclosure did not, on a balance of probabilities, impair the accused's right to make full answer and defence because the relevant content was substantially known to the defence, no reasonable possibility existed that the undisclosed material affected the verdict or would have led to different lines of inquiry, and defence counsel failed to pursue disclosure with required diligence; therefore no mistrial or severance was ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for mistrial and for severance dismissed; convictions stand and sentencing remains adjourned

Orders

  • Mistrial application dismissed
  • Application to sever counts dismissed