R. v. Melvin

R. v. Melvin

The judge found the accused discharged counsel in a purposeful tactical manner to seek delay; an adjournment to obtain new counsel would likely cause substantial delay and prejudice; the accused was capable of a fundamentally fair trial if self-represented; appointing an amicus curiae was an appropriate, less drastic measure to protect fairness; therefore the motion for a mistrial was dismissed and the trial ordered to continue with an amicus appointed.

Citation
2017 NSSC 273
Parties
Crown/prosecutor: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: James Bernard Melvin
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial (attempted Murder and Conspiracy) / Mid Trial; Application for Mistrial Following Discharge of Defence Counsel; Appointment of Amicus Curiae
Outcome
Motion for mistrial dismissed; trial to continue with the accused self-represented and an amicus curiae appointed to assist court and accused
Legal Topics
Mistrial, Amicus Curiae Appointment, Self Representation, Fair Trial, Withdrawal of Counsel, Principled Hearsay Exception
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Procedural Law Evidence Law Constitutional Law Mistrial Amicus Curiae Appointment Self Representation Fair Trial +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecutor

James Bernard Melvin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Jury Trial (attempted Murder and Conspiracy) / Mid Trial; Application for Mistrial Following Discharge of Defence Counsel; Appointment of Amicus Curiae

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mistrial should be declared where the accused discharged counsel mid-trial
  2. 2 Whether the accused can receive a fundamentally fair trial if required to proceed self-represented
  3. 3 Whether an amicus curiae may be appointed and whether discharged counsel may serve as amicus

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the accused discharged counsel in a purposeful tactical manner to seek delay; an adjournment to obtain new counsel would likely cause substantial delay and prejudice; the accused was capable of a fundamentally fair trial if self-represented; appointing an amicus curiae was an appropriate, less drastic measure to protect fairness; therefore the motion for a mistrial was dismissed and the trial ordered to continue with an amicus appointed.

Court Disposition

Motion for mistrial dismissed; trial to continue with the accused self-represented and an amicus curiae appointed to assist court and accused

Orders

  • Dismissal of the accused's motion for a mistrial
  • Appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the court in ensuring a fair trial (initial appointment of discharged counsel Patrick MacEwen considered; subsequently Peter Kidston appointed)