R. v. MacLellan

R. v. MacLellan

Although Crown and police failed to provide some investigator notes and photographs in a timely manner and this constituted an impairment of the accused's s.7 right, the court found the prejudice was not of such a degree that it could not be remedied by less drastic measures; accordingly a stay was not justified and the application was denied with permission for adjournment, expert consultation and recall of witnesses as appropriate.

Citation
2012 NSPC 46
Parties
Plaintiff/crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Bernard Alexander MacLellan
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Arson / Application for Stay of Proceedings at Close of Crown's Case; Trial Adjourned Pending Ruling
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings denied
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Section 7 Charter Right to Make Full Answer and Defence, Disclosure Obligations (stinchcombe), Abuse of Process, Expert Evidence, Late/non Disclosure of Investigative Notes and Photographs
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Rights Evidence Law Procedural Law Stay of Proceedings Section 7 Charter Right to Make Full Answer and Defence Disclosure Obligations (stinchcombe) Abuse of Process +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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Plaintiff/crown

Bernard Alexander MacLellan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Arson / Application for Stay of Proceedings at Close of Crown's Case; Trial Adjourned Pending Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown's late/non-disclosure of investigator notes and photographs breached s.7 right to make full answer and defence
  2. 2 Whether the non-disclosure caused prejudice so severe that only a stay of proceedings is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether remedial measures short of a stay (adjournment, recall of witnesses, expert consultation) can cure prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Although Crown and police failed to provide some investigator notes and photographs in a timely manner and this constituted an impairment of the accused's s.7 right, the court found the prejudice was not of such a degree that it could not be remedied by less drastic measures; accordingly a stay was not justified and the application was denied with permission for adjournment, expert consultation and recall of witnesses as appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings denied

Orders

  • Stay application dismissed
  • Accused granted leave to adjourn to consult with expert or to call defence evidence