R. v. Hill

R. v. Hill

Although the Crown breached its disclosure obligation by failing to disclose a complainant's handwritten statement, the non-disclosure was not shown to be wilful and did not, on balance, probably prejudice the accused's ability to make full answer and defence such that a stay was required; the breach was remediable by ordering a mistrial and a new trial, therefore the stay application was dismissed and a mistrial declared for count two with a new trial ordered.

Citation
2004 BCSC 883
Parties
Crown/respondent: Regina; Accused/applicant: Dwayne Hill
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault; Stay Application Following Conviction / Post Trial Stay Application at Sentencing; Decision on Mistrial and Stay
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings denied; mistrial declared for count two; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure, Stay of Proceedings, Mistrial, Judicial Interim Release, Professional Responsibility of Crown
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Procedural Law Charter Law Disclosure Obligations Non Disclosure Stay of Proceedings Mistrial Judicial Interim Release +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/respondent

Dwayne Hill

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault; Stay Application Following Conviction / Post Trial Stay Application at Sentencing; Decision on Mistrial and Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown non-disclosure of a complainant's handwritten statement warranted a stay of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure probably prejudiced the accused's ability to make full answer and defence contrary to s.7 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the failure was wilful or remediable and whether a mistrial or stay is the appropriate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Crown breached its disclosure obligation by failing to disclose a complainant's handwritten statement, the non-disclosure was not shown to be wilful and did not, on balance, probably prejudice the accused's ability to make full answer and defence such that a stay was required; the breach was remediable by ordering a mistrial and a new trial, therefore the stay application was dismissed and a mistrial declared for count two with a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings denied; mistrial declared for count two; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Application for a judicial stay dismissed
  • A mistrial is declared with respect to count two