R. v. Gentles

R. v. Gentles

The one-year gap between the stayed first information and the second information is pre-charge delay and cannot be counted under s.11(b); absent evidence the Crown intended to recharge or that the accused remained subject to the judicial process, the total post-charge delay was not unreasonable and the stay is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 BCSC 1496
Parties
Crown/respondent: Regina; Accused/applicant: Martin William Michael Gentles
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Stay Under S.11(b) of the Charter Before Sentencing
Outcome
Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed; proceed to sentencing.
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Delay, Stay of Proceedings, Pre Charge (gap) Delay, Prosecutorial Discretion, Institutional Delay, Prejudice
Source Language
english
Charter Law Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Section 11(b) Delay Stay of Proceedings Pre Charge (gap) Delay Prosecutorial Discretion Institutional Delay +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/respondent

Martin William Michael Gentles

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Stay Under S.11(b) of the Charter Before Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the gap between the first information (Apr 22, 2012) and the second information (Apr 25, 2013) is to be included in the s.11(b) delay calculation
  2. 2 Whether the Crown's failure to explain the gap period should be imputed to the Crown for s.11(b) purposes
  3. 3 Whether pre-charge delay can give rise to a s.11(b) breach or inferred prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The one-year gap between the stayed first information and the second information is pre-charge delay and cannot be counted under s.11(b); absent evidence the Crown intended to recharge or that the accused remained subject to the judicial process, the total post-charge delay was not unreasonable and the stay is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed; proceed to sentencing.

Orders

  • Application for stay dismissed
  • Proceed with sentencing as scheduled