R. v. Callender

R. v. Callender

The delay of approximately five and one half years was inordinate and, on balance, predominantly attributable to Crown actions and inaction (late and disorganized disclosure, forensic delays, failure to correct a judicial misapprehension and contesting reopening), thereby violating s.11(b) of the Charter and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 NSSC 95
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/applicant: Mark Anthony Austin Callender
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking (controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2)) / Stay Application Under S.11(b) Heard in Supreme Court (motion to Stay Proceedings); Decision to Stay Entered
Outcome
Proceedings stayed.
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time (s.11(b)), Stay of Proceedings, Disclosure Obligations, Forensic Evidence Delays, Mistrial and Attribution of Delay, Prejudice Assessment
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Rights Evidence Procedural Law Unreasonable Delay Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time (s.11(b)) Stay of Proceedings +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Mark Anthony Austin Callender

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking (controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2)) / Stay Application Under S.11(b) Heard in Supreme Court (motion to Stay Proceedings); Decision to Stay Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the five and one half year delay violated s.11(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Proper attribution of periods of delay to Crown, defence or neutral/inherent case requirements
  3. 3 Whether actual or inferred prejudice to accused justified a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The delay of approximately five and one half years was inordinate and, on balance, predominantly attributable to Crown actions and inaction (late and disorganized disclosure, forensic delays, failure to correct a judicial misapprehension and contesting reopening), thereby violating s.11(b) of the Charter and justifying a stay of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings entered under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.