R. v. Banfield

R. v. Banfield

The court concluded the Crown properly exercised its discretion: the defence failed to show a reasonable possibility the PIRS records would be useful to full answer and defence, the records were not relevant or relied upon in the investigation, and disclosure would constitute a fishing expedition; application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 NSPC 76
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: David Alex Banfield; Defendant: John Alfred Hardy
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Disclosure Application Following Re Election After Preliminary Inquiry
Outcome
Application dismissed; Crown not required to produce PIRS records for July 30, 2002 to October 4, 2005.
Legal Topics
Crown Disclosure Obligations, Relevance Standard, Police Information Retrieval System (pirs), Review of Prosecutorial Discretion, Stinchcombe Application
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Disclosure Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Crown Disclosure Obligations Relevance Standard Police Information Retrieval System (pirs) Review of Prosecutorial Discretion +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

David Alex Banfield

Defendant

John Alfred Hardy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Disclosure Application Following Re Election After Preliminary Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown must produce PIRS records for the accused
  2. 2 What relevance threshold applies to Crown disclosure (reasonable possibility of usefulness)
  3. 3 Whether the Crown properly exercised its discretion in refusing disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded the Crown properly exercised its discretion: the defence failed to show a reasonable possibility the PIRS records would be useful to full answer and defence, the records were not relevant or relied upon in the investigation, and disclosure would constitute a fishing expedition; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Crown not required to produce PIRS records for July 30, 2002 to October 4, 2005.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order for production of PIRS records for period July 30, 2002 to October 4, 2005