R. v. McCully

R. v. McCully

Total delay calculated from charge to anticipated end of trial was approximately 32 months; after attributing specific periods to defence delay (total deductions leaving 17.5 months) the delay fell below the 18‑month provincial ceiling. Defence failed to prove it took meaningful, sustained steps to expedite proceedings and did not show the case took markedly longer than reasonably required. Therefore no breach of s.11(b) was found and a stay under s.24(1) was denied.

Citation
2016 NSPC 70
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/applicant: Alicia McCully
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2) (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Section 11(b) Charter Application Decision (pre Trial/trial Continuation)
Outcome
Section 11(b) application dismissed; no Charter breach found; stay of proceedings denied; trial to continue.
Legal Topics
Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time, Section 11(b) Charter, Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1), Disclosure Obligations, Electronic Evidence/cell Phone Analysis, Jordan Framework, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time Section 11(b) Charter Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Disclosure Obligations Electronic Evidence/cell Phone Analysis +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Alicia McCully

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2) (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Section 11(b) Charter Application Decision (pre Trial/trial Continuation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings under s.24(1) is appropriate
  3. 3 Allocation of periods of delay between Crown, defence and institutional causes

Ratio Decidendi

Total delay calculated from charge to anticipated end of trial was approximately 32 months; after attributing specific periods to defence delay (total deductions leaving 17.5 months) the delay fell below the 18‑month provincial ceiling. Defence failed to prove it took meaningful, sustained steps to expedite proceedings and did not show the case took markedly longer than reasonably required. Therefore no breach of s.11(b) was found and a stay under s.24(1) was denied.

Court Disposition

Section 11(b) application dismissed; no Charter breach found; stay of proceedings denied; trial to continue.

Orders

  • Section 11(b) Charter application dismissed
  • Stay of proceedings under s.24(1) denied