R. v. Akumu

R. v. Akumu

The late disclosure met the broad Stinchcombe relevance threshold but had only marginal value to issues at trial; there was no reasonable possibility the late disclosure impaired the accused's right to make full answer and defence given the context, s.276 limitations, and the defendant's failure to demonstrate realistic lost opportunities; therefore no remedy including mistrial was warranted.

Citation
2017 BCSC 384
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Moreen Akumu; Accused: Mohammed Boima
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Mid Trial Application for Mistrial Due to Late Disclosure (trial Ongoing)
Outcome
Mistrial application dismissed
Legal Topics
Mistrial, Stinchcombe Disclosure, Section 276 Criminal Code (sexual History), Right to Make Full Answer and Defence, Late Disclosure Remedy
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Charter Law Disclosure Obligations Mistrial Stinchcombe Disclosure Section 276 Criminal Code (sexual History) Right to Make Full Answer and Defence +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Moreen Akumu

Accused

Mohammed Boima

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Mid Trial Application for Mistrial Due to Late Disclosure (trial Ongoing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late disclosure of an unvetted witness statement impaired the accused's right to make full answer and defence
  2. 2 Materiality of the undisclosed information to issues at trial
  3. 3 Admissibility limits under s.276 of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The late disclosure met the broad Stinchcombe relevance threshold but had only marginal value to issues at trial; there was no reasonable possibility the late disclosure impaired the accused's right to make full answer and defence given the context, s.276 limitations, and the defendant's failure to demonstrate realistic lost opportunities; therefore no remedy including mistrial was warranted.

Court Disposition

Mistrial application dismissed

Orders

  • Mistrial application dismissed
  • No remedy ordered under s.24(1) of the Charter