R. v. Burns

R. v. Burns

Characterizing and apportioning the delay between neutral, defence, Crown and institutional causes, and finding only modest inferred and insufficient actual prejudice, the Court concluded the total delay did not constitute an unreasonable delay under s.11(b) and dismissed the accused's s.24(1) application.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 NSSC 317
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Timothy Burns
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault (charter Challenge) / Pre Trial Section 11(b) Voir Dire and S.24(1) Application; Trial Scheduled December 15–19, 2014
Outcome
Application dismissed; no violation of s.11(b); proceedings to continue
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Unreasonable Delay, Preliminary Inquiry, Bail Conditions, Inferred and Actual Prejudice, Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Section 11(b) Unreasonable Delay Preliminary Inquiry Bail Conditions Inferred and Actual Prejudice Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1)

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Timothy Burns

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault (charter Challenge) / Pre Trial Section 11(b) Voir Dire and S.24(1) Application; Trial Scheduled December 15–19, 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay from charge to trial breached s.11(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether prejudice (actual or inferred) to the accused resulted from the delay
  3. 3 Whether stay of proceedings or other relief under s.24(1) is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

Characterizing and apportioning the delay between neutral, defence, Crown and institutional causes, and finding only modest inferred and insufficient actual prejudice, the Court concluded the total delay did not constitute an unreasonable delay under s.11(b) and dismissed the accused's s.24(1) application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no violation of s.11(b); proceedings to continue

Orders

  • Application for relief under s.24(1) of the Charter dismissed
  • Publication ban ordered pursuant to s.486.4 of the Criminal Code