R. v. Denny

R. v. Denny

The court will not adopt a practice of issuing administrative "warrants‑to‑hold" to preserve jurisdiction for persons officially directed not to attend court during the COVID‑19 state of emergency because the Criminal Code does not permit administrative holds on warrants and issuing default‑of‑appearance warrants in that context would conflict with the reasonable‑bail protections of s.11(e) of the Charter; instead the court adjourned matters to a specified date, preserved jurisdiction for persons represented by counsel, declined to issue bench warrants or new process for absent unrepresented persons with confirmed process at this time, and left decisions about issuing process to...

Citation
2020 NSPC 14
Parties
Applicant/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/respondent: Eric Joseph Denny
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Adjournment/scheduling (matters Adjourned)
Outcome
Matters adjourned and court declined to issue warrants‑to‑hold or new bench warrants for persons officially directed not to attend; jurisdiction preserved for represented persons; prosecutorial/police discretion preserved regarding issuance of process.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Bench Warrants, Jurisdiction Over Person, Statutory Interpretation, Bail and Pre Trial Detention (s.11(e) Charter), COVID 19 Court Directives, Prosecutorial Discretion
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Procedural Law Charter Law Public Health Law Adjournment Bench Warrants Jurisdiction Over Person Statutory Interpretation +3 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Applicant/prosecution

Eric Joseph Denny

Accused/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Adjournment/scheduling (matters Adjourned)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may issue delayed‑enforcement or "warrants‑to‑hold" to preserve jurisdiction over persons officially directed not to attend court during the COVID‑19 state of emergency
  2. 2 Whether issuing default‑of‑appearance warrants for persons officially directed not to attend would comply with the Criminal Code and s.11(e) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the court must issue process during the state of emergency or may refrain pending public‑health risks

Ratio Decidendi

The court will not adopt a practice of issuing administrative "warrants‑to‑hold" to preserve jurisdiction for persons officially directed not to attend court during the COVID‑19 state of emergency because the Criminal Code does not permit administrative holds on warrants and issuing default‑of‑appearance warrants in that context would conflict with the reasonable‑bail protections of s.11(e) of the Charter; instead the court adjourned matters to a specified date, preserved jurisdiction for persons represented by counsel, declined to issue bench warrants or new process for absent unrepresented persons with confirmed process at this time, and left decisions about issuing process to...

Court Disposition

Matters adjourned and court declined to issue warrants‑to‑hold or new bench warrants for persons officially directed not to attend; jurisdiction preserved for represented persons; prosecutorial/police discretion preserved regarding issuance of process.

Orders

  • All matters called on April 6, 2020 adjourned for scheduling to 15 June 2020; adult matters to be called at 9:30 and youth matters at 13:30
  • Where counsel is present, the court's jurisdiction over the person is preserved and no further action is required