R. v. Prosper

R. v. Prosper

No factual basis was established that publication would create a real risk to the accused's safety or exacerbate her disadvantages under s.15; the public interest in open trials and freedom of the press outweighs the asserted privacy and equality claims; accordingly the application for a publication ban is dismissed and the interim ban vacated.

Citation
2001 NSPC 33
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Natasha Prosper; Intervenor Applicant: Stepping Stone Association
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Publication Ban; Pre Trial Constitutional Challenge
Outcome
Application for permanent publication ban dismissed; interim publication ban vacated; intervenor application deferred
Legal Topics
Publication Ban, Section 213 Criminal Code (communication for Prostitution), Section 15 Charter (equality), Freedom of the Press, Public Trial, Vagueness Challenge, Risk to Safety
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Media Law Administrative/procedural Law Publication Ban Section 213 Criminal Code (communication for Prostitution) Section 15 Charter (equality) Freedom of the Press +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Natasha Prosper

Accused

Stepping Stone Association

Intervenor Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Publication Ban; Pre Trial Constitutional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the accused's identity should be banned
  2. 2 Whether publication would infringe s.15 equality rights
  3. 3 Whether publication poses a real risk to the accused's safety

Ratio Decidendi

No factual basis was established that publication would create a real risk to the accused's safety or exacerbate her disadvantages under s.15; the public interest in open trials and freedom of the press outweighs the asserted privacy and equality claims; accordingly the application for a publication ban is dismissed and the interim ban vacated.

Court Disposition

Application for permanent publication ban dismissed; interim publication ban vacated; intervenor application deferred

Orders

  • Application for permanent publication ban dismissed
  • Interim publication ban vacated