R. v. Sharpe

The application for particulars is dismissed because the counts as drafted satisfy s.581 of the Criminal Code by providing sufficient detail to inform the accused of the charges; the Crown is not required to particularize the precise acts or disclose its theories and there is no basis to order particulars under s.587.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: 2004 BCSC 241
Parties: Crown: Regina; Accused: John Robin Sharpe
Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 20 February 2004
Procedural Posture: Criminal Sexual Offences / Ruling on Application for Particulars During Trial; Preliminary Inquiry Held; Charter Vagueness Challenge Dismissed
Outcome: Application for particulars dismissed.
Legal Topics: Particulars, Vagueness/charter Challenge, Disclosure, Sexual Offences, Indecent Assault, Gross Indecency
Source Language: english

Criminal Law Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Particulars Vagueness/charter Challenge Disclosure Sexual Offences +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Regina

Crown

John Robin Sharpe

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Ruling on Application for Particulars During Trial; Preliminary Inquiry Held; Charter Vagueness Challenge Dismissed

Legal Issues

1 Whether Crown must particularize acts constituting indecent assault and gross indecency under ss.156 and 157 of the Criminal Code
2 Whether counts are unconstitutionally vague under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
3 Whether particulars are required to disclose the Crown's theories or precise acts

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for particulars dismissed.

Orders

Defence application for particulars dismissed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.