R. v. Dass

R. v. Dass

The court refused to grant blanket permission to hear a stay application based on pre-charge or post-charge delay prior to trial because assessment of the specific, significant prejudice required for a stay ordinarily requires the context and evidence available at trial; accordingly the judge declined to adjourn the trial to hear the stay application and exercised discretion against pre-trial determination on the material before him.

Citation
2016 BCSC 989
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Charles Kamal Dass
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application Re Stay of Proceedings (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Judge declined to permit a blanket pre-trial hearing of the stay application and denied the defence request to adjourn trial to hear the stay application; the court indicated stay applications based on delay are generally to be determined at trial when prejudice can be assessed.
Legal Topics
Delay, Pre Charge Delay, Post Charge Delay, Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Charter S.7, Charter S.11(b), Charter S.11(d)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Delay Pre Charge Delay Post Charge Delay Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Charles Kamal Dass

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application Re Stay of Proceedings (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay application based on pre-charge and post-charge delay may be heard before trial
  2. 2 Whether delay breached ss.7 and 11 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether a common law abuse of process stay is warranted because of delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant blanket permission to hear a stay application based on pre-charge or post-charge delay prior to trial because assessment of the specific, significant prejudice required for a stay ordinarily requires the context and evidence available at trial; accordingly the judge declined to adjourn the trial to hear the stay application and exercised discretion against pre-trial determination on the material before him.

Court Disposition

Judge declined to permit a blanket pre-trial hearing of the stay application and denied the defence request to adjourn trial to hear the stay application; the court indicated stay applications based on delay are generally to be determined at trial when prejudice can be assessed.

Orders

  • Application to adjourn the trial to hear the stay application denied
  • No blanket permission granted to bring a pre-trial stay application; timing left to counsel with indication that such applications are generally to be determined at trial