R. v. R.C.S.

R. v. R.C.S.

The RCMP's failure to test, monitor and thereafter remedy the defective recording amounted to unacceptable negligence given the high relevance of the initial taped interview; the lost recording caused actual prejudice to the accused's s.7 right to make full answer and defence because there was no adequate substitute evidence, and therefore a stay of proceedings under s.24(1) of the Charter was warranted.

Citation
2004 NSSC 232
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: R. C. S.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault and Sexual Touching / Pre Trial Stay Application After Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Proceedings stayed under s.24(1) of the Charter.
Legal Topics
Loss of Evidence, Disclosure Obligations, Unacceptable Negligence, Stay of Proceedings, Right to Make Full Answer and Defence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Charter Police Procedure Loss of Evidence Disclosure Obligations Unacceptable Negligence Stay of Proceedings +1 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

R. C. S.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault and Sexual Touching / Pre Trial Stay Application After Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RCMP's failure to preserve an audible complete audio recording of the complainant's initial statement amounts to unacceptable negligence
  2. 2 Whether that loss breached the accused's s.7 Charter right to make full answer and defence
  3. 3 Whether the prejudice caused by the loss is such that only a stay of proceedings is an appropriate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The RCMP's failure to test, monitor and thereafter remedy the defective recording amounted to unacceptable negligence given the high relevance of the initial taped interview; the lost recording caused actual prejudice to the accused's s.7 right to make full answer and defence because there was no adequate substitute evidence, and therefore a stay of proceedings under s.24(1) of the Charter was warranted.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed under s.24(1) of the Charter.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings entered under s.24(1) of the Charter in respect of charges under Criminal Code ss.153(1)(a) and 271