R. v. J.J.

R. v. J.J.

The statutory requirement to apply on seven days' notice for an admissibility hearing under ss.278.92-278.94 infringes the accused's s.7 Charter rights because it compels premature disclosure of detailed defence evidence and strategy before the complainant has testified and before the Crown has established a case to meet, thereby unduly truncating the right to make full answer and defence; the timing requirement cannot stand as written and the Crown may be afforded an opportunity to justify or seek alternative relief under s.1.

Citation
2020 BCSC 29
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: J.J.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Assault) / Charter Application / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing
Outcome
The court found that the requirement to apply on seven days' notice under s.278.92 violates s.7 of the Charter by compelling premature disclosure and unduly impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Charter S.7, Charter S.11(c), Charter S.11(d), Third Party Records, Accused in Possession Provisions, Admissibility of Records, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Privacy Law Sexual Assault Charter S.7 Charter S.11(c) Charter S.11(d) +4 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

J.J.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sexual Assault) / Charter Application / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code violate s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether ss.278.92-278.94 violate s.11(c) and s.11(d) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the seven-day notice requirement compels disclosure of defence evidence and impairs the right to make full answer and defence

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory requirement to apply on seven days' notice for an admissibility hearing under ss.278.92-278.94 infringes the accused's s.7 Charter rights because it compels premature disclosure of detailed defence evidence and strategy before the complainant has testified and before the Crown has established a case to meet, thereby unduly truncating the right to make full answer and defence; the timing requirement cannot stand as written and the Crown may be afforded an opportunity to justify or seek alternative relief under s.1.

Court Disposition

The court found that the requirement to apply on seven days' notice under s.278.92 violates s.7 of the Charter by compelling premature disclosure and unduly impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

Orders

  • Declared that the seven-day notice requirement for applications under s.278.92 breaches s.7 of the Charter in the circumstances of this case
  • Crown given liberty to seek a s.1 justification hearing or to provide written submissions on s.1 and to contact Scheduling to arrange that hearing