R. v. Rhyno

R. v. Rhyno

The cumulative 27 month delay, caused by institutional scheduling and by a Crown/RCMP failure to disclose surveillance recordings and relevant materials (with no waiver by the accused), and producing real but not catastrophic prejudice to the accused, meant society’s interest in trial did not outweigh the Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time; accordingly a stay of proceedings was required and was granted.

Citation
2013 NSPC 53
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Duane Alan Rhyno
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision on S.11(b) Stay Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted
Legal Topics
Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time (s.11(b)), Disclosure Obligations, Stays of Proceedings, Police Failure to Disclose Surveillance
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time (s.11(b)) Disclosure Obligations Stays of Proceedings Police Failure to Disclose Surveillance

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Duane Alan Rhyno

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision on S.11(b) Stay Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 27 month delay infringed s.11(b) of the Charter and warranted a stay
  2. 2 Whether Crown/RCMP conduct regarding disclosure of surveillance recordings and instrument maintenance/tests caused attributable delay
  3. 3 Whether prejudice to the accused from delay justified staying proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative 27 month delay, caused by institutional scheduling and by a Crown/RCMP failure to disclose surveillance recordings and relevant materials (with no waiver by the accused), and producing real but not catastrophic prejudice to the accused, meant society’s interest in trial did not outweigh the Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time; accordingly a stay of proceedings was required and was granted.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings entered in favour of the accused (proceedings stayed effective immediately)