R. v. Jessome

R. v. Jessome

No Charter breach found because the lawyer acted as a private actor not subject to s.32 of the Charter, the police officer testified he would have pursued the witnesses regardless such that causation on a balance of probabilities is lacking, and the common law discretion to exclude evidence was not warranted; therefore the application for a stay or exclusion was denied.

Citation
2003 NSPC 39
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Joseph Glenn Jessome
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Assault Causing Bodily Harm / Charter Application Pre Trial Decision
Outcome
Charter application denied; no stay and no exclusion of evidence
Legal Topics
Right to Silence, Charter S.7, Charter S.32, Solicitor Client Privilege, State Actor Test, Exclusion of Evidence, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Right to Silence Charter S.7 Charter S.32 Solicitor Client Privilege State Actor Test +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Joseph Glenn Jessome

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Assault Causing Bodily Harm / Charter Application Pre Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure by defence counsel to police violated the accused's right to silence under s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether Charter s.32 applies to a private lawyer's conduct (i.e., whether counsel was a state actor)
  3. 3 Whether evidence should be excluded at common law or proceedings stayed given the disclosure and subsequent police investigation

Ratio Decidendi

No Charter breach found because the lawyer acted as a private actor not subject to s.32 of the Charter, the police officer testified he would have pursued the witnesses regardless such that causation on a balance of probabilities is lacking, and the common law discretion to exclude evidence was not warranted; therefore the application for a stay or exclusion was denied.

Court Disposition

Charter application denied; no stay and no exclusion of evidence

Orders

  • Application for a stay of proceedings denied
  • Application to exclude the two witnesses and derivative evidence denied; evidence is admissible at trial