R. v. McNeil

R. v. McNeil

The court held that the period from the end of the first trial to the declaration of mistrial constituted verdict deliberation time properly assessed under KGK; that the accused bore no attributable delay, that the judge's indeterminate medical leave and institutional handling resulted in deliberation time that was markedly longer than reasonably necessary, and that the Crown could not rebut the resulting s.11(b) breach; accordingly a judicial stay of proceedings was ordered.

Citation
2023 NSPC 32
Parties
Crown/prosecution: His Majesty the King; Accused/applicant: B.M.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences (indictment) / Decision on Application for a Stay of Proceedings Under S.11(b) Charter Following Mistrial and Recommencement Scheduling
Outcome
Application for a stay of proceedings granted; proceedings stayed for the accused.
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Charter Unreasonable Delay, Stay of Proceedings S.24(1), Jordan Framework, KGK Verdict Deliberation Analysis, Mistrial and Judge Unavailability, Publication Ban S.486.4 Criminal Code
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sexual Offences Judicial Administration Section 11(b) Charter Unreasonable Delay Stay of Proceedings S.24(1) Jordan Framework KGK Verdict Deliberation 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown/prosecution

B.M.

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences (indictment) / Decision on Application for a Stay of Proceedings Under S.11(b) Charter Following Mistrial and Recommencement Scheduling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's s.11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated by the delay
  2. 2 Whether verdict deliberation time after close of evidence is assessed under Jordan or KGK and whether it was 'markedly longer' than reasonable
  3. 3 Whether delay should be attributed to defence, Crown, or characterized as exceptional circumstances (deductible)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the period from the end of the first trial to the declaration of mistrial constituted verdict deliberation time properly assessed under KGK; that the accused bore no attributable delay, that the judge's indeterminate medical leave and institutional handling resulted in deliberation time that was markedly longer than reasonably necessary, and that the Crown could not rebut the resulting s.11(b) breach; accordingly a judicial stay of proceedings was ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of proceedings granted; proceedings stayed for the accused.

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed as remedy for breach of s.11(b) of the Charter
  • Publication ban in force under s.486.4 Criminal Code prohibiting any publication that could identify the complainant, victim or witness