HMTQ v. R.E.M.

HMTQ v. R.E.M.

The application for a stay was dismissed because the overall delay, though long, was largely attributable to the accused's deliberate flight from prosecution, the accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities actual prejudice to his s.11(b) or residual s.7 rights, and a stay was not necessary to protect principles of fundamental justice.

Citation
2004 BCSC 987
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: R.E.M.; Complainant: C.L.; Complainant: K.A.P.; Complainant: J.K.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre‑trial Motion (voir Dire / Stay Application Re: Unreasonable Delay)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Delay, Section 7 Residual Protection, Stay of Proceedings, Preliminary Inquiry, Attribution of Delay, Extradition Delay
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Extradition Law Procedure Section 11(b) Delay Section 7 Residual Protection Stay of Proceedings Preliminary Inquiry +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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

R.E.M.

Accused

C.L.

Complainant

K.A.P.

Complainant

J.K.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre‑trial Motion (voir Dire / Stay Application Re: Unreasonable Delay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an unreasonable delay contrary to s.11(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether s.7 provides residual protection beyond s.11(b) and whether it was breached
  3. 3 Whether prejudice to the accused from delay was proved or could be inferred

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was dismissed because the overall delay, though long, was largely attributable to the accused's deliberate flight from prosecution, the accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities actual prejudice to his s.11(b) or residual s.7 rights, and a stay was not necessary to protect principles of fundamental justice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings dismissed
  • Proceedings to continue; no stay granted