R. v. Lambert

R. v. Lambert

The court held that consenting to remain in custody on a subsequent charge constitutes an intervening detention that restarts the s.525 timing; therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a s.525 detention review on the earlier summary matters until the detention on the intervening matter lapses or the applicable statutory period expires.

Citation
2019 BCSC 1401
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Cole Vid Lambert
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Detention Review Under S.525 Criminal Code / Pre Trial Detention Review Hearing — Jurisdictional Determination
Outcome
Court lacks jurisdiction to conduct s.525 detention review; consent to remain in custody on intervening indictable charge restarts the s.525 clock.
Legal Topics
Section 525 Criminal Code, Pre Trial Detention, Consent to Remain in Custody, Intervening Detention Order, R. V. Myers Precedent
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail and Pre Trial Detention Statutory Interpretation Section 525 Criminal Code Pre Trial Detention Consent to Remain in Custody Intervening Detention Order R. V. Myers Precedent

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Cole Vid Lambert

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Detention Review Under S.525 Criminal Code / Pre Trial Detention Review Hearing — Jurisdictional Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court has jurisdiction under s.525 when accused is detained on another matter
  2. 2 Whether consenting to remain in custody on a subsequent charge constitutes 'being required to be detained in custody in respect of any other matter' and restarts the s.525 timing
  3. 3 Whether the timing trigger for s.525 is when the offence occurred or when the accused is taken into custody on the charge

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that consenting to remain in custody on a subsequent charge constitutes an intervening detention that restarts the s.525 timing; therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a s.525 detention review on the earlier summary matters until the detention on the intervening matter lapses or the applicable statutory period expires.

Court Disposition

Court lacks jurisdiction to conduct s.525 detention review; consent to remain in custody on intervening indictable charge restarts the s.525 clock.

Orders

  • Detention review hearing not held for lack of jurisdiction under s.525 Criminal Code
  • Crown granted leave to file the Provincial Court (New Westminster) order as a desk order; defence approval as to form dispensed with