R. v. Vu

R. v. Vu

Although the overall delay was lengthy and a prima facie unreasonable delay was established, the bulk of the delay was attributable to the accused or his prior counsel (including an inferred waiver from July 6, 2000), the accused failed to demonstrate actual prejudice of sufficient magnitude, and the balance of interests favoured proceeding to trial; therefore a stay of proceedings was denied.

Citation
2002 BCSC 584
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Duc Long Vu
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on Stay Application Under S.11(b) Charter Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time
Outcome
Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed; s.11(b) breach not established on balance of probabilities.
Legal Topics
Delay, Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time (s.11(b)), Stay of Proceedings, Waiver of Time, Prejudice Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Rights Delay Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time (s.11(b)) Stay of Proceedings Waiver of Time Prejudice Assessment

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Duc Long Vu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on Stay Application Under S.11(b) Charter Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 33+ month delay breached s.11(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the delay was waived or attributable to the accused or counsel
  3. 3 Whether the accused suffered actual or inferred prejudice sufficient to justify a stay

Ratio Decidendi

Although the overall delay was lengthy and a prima facie unreasonable delay was established, the bulk of the delay was attributable to the accused or his prior counsel (including an inferred waiver from July 6, 2000), the accused failed to demonstrate actual prejudice of sufficient magnitude, and the balance of interests favoured proceeding to trial; therefore a stay of proceedings was denied.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed; s.11(b) breach not established on balance of probabilities.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings denied
  • Proceed to trial as scheduled (trial date April 22, 2002)