R. v. Boliver

R. v. Boliver

The arrest was lawful (intoxication and public disturbance justified under s.87/111 Liquor Control Act and alternatively s.495/common law); the use of force including two taser deployments was not excessive given violent resistance and crowd risk; loss of taser camera footage did not amount to culpable misconduct or such prejudice as to breach s.7; there was a breach of ss.10(a) and 10(b) because the accused was not promptly informed of reasons and counsel, but the circumstances and absence of prejudice meant a stay was not warranted; application dismissed in full.

Citation
2012 NSPC 33
Parties
Respondent/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Applicant/accused: Richard Temple Boliver
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Application (pre Trial) / Preliminary Charter Application Hearing; Decision on Charter Application
Outcome
Application dismissed in its entirety; no stay granted
Legal Topics
Use of Force, Arrest Without Warrant, Taser Deployment, Disclosure of Evidence, Right to Counsel (s.10), Section 7, 9, 12 Charter Challenges, Remedy Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Use of Force Arrest Without Warrant Taser Deployment Disclosure of Evidence Right to Counsel (s.10) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent/prosecution

Richard Temple Boliver

Applicant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Application (pre Trial) / Preliminary Charter Application Hearing; Decision on Charter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest was lawful (s.87 Liquor Control Act, s.495 Criminal Code or common law)
  2. 2 Whether force used (including taser) was excessive under s.7
  3. 3 Whether loss/unavailability of taser video and other recordings breached disclosure and s.7 right to make full answer and defence

Ratio Decidendi

The arrest was lawful (intoxication and public disturbance justified under s.87/111 Liquor Control Act and alternatively s.495/common law); the use of force including two taser deployments was not excessive given violent resistance and crowd risk; loss of taser camera footage did not amount to culpable misconduct or such prejudice as to breach s.7; there was a breach of ss.10(a) and 10(b) because the accused was not promptly informed of reasons and counsel, but the circumstances and absence of prejudice meant a stay was not warranted; application dismissed in full.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in its entirety; no stay granted

Orders

  • Charter application dismissed
  • No stay of proceedings; criminal charges to proceed to trial