R. v. Hopkins

R. v. Hopkins

s.515(6) reverse onus did not apply because the prior assault charge had been elected summary and the outstanding warrant on the failure to appear charge meant the accused had not been 'released'; notwithstanding that legal error the court concluded detention was necessary on the primary ground (to ensure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 BCSC 1383
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Brian Wayne Hopkins a.k.a. David Hopkins
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judicial Interim Release Review (bail Review)
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; accused remanded in custody.
Legal Topics
Judicial Interim Release, S.515(6) Reverse Onus, Failure to Appear, Threats, Fraud/theft, Primary Ground for Detention (ensure Attendance)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Bail and Custody Property Offences Procedure Judicial Interim Release S.515(6) Reverse Onus Failure to Appear Threats +2 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Brian Wayne Hopkins a.k.a. David Hopkins

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judicial Interim Release Review (bail Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.515(6) reverse onus applied
  2. 2 Whether Provincial Court judge erred in law
  3. 3 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances warranting release

Ratio Decidendi

s.515(6) reverse onus did not apply because the prior assault charge had been elected summary and the outstanding warrant on the failure to appear charge meant the accused had not been 'released'; notwithstanding that legal error the court concluded detention was necessary on the primary ground (to ensure attendance) given the accused's repeated failures to appear and the seriousness/value of the alleged offences, and therefore dismissed the review and remanded the accused.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; accused remanded in custody.

Orders

  • Application for review of the Provincial Court judge's detention order dismissed
  • Accused remanded in custody until Provincial Court trial date in January 2005