R. v. B.T.

R. v. B.T.

The Youth Court judge lacks jurisdiction to grant a publication ban to protect the fair trial rights of adult accused who will be tried in the Supreme Court; such applications must be made to the trial judge or a judge at the level where the adult trial will be held, while the Youth Court retains jurisdiction only over the youth accused's fair trial rights.

Citation
2012 NSPC 60
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused Youth: T.(B.); Accused Adult / Applicant: Christopher Picco; Accused Adult / Applicant: Jerrico Upshaw; Intervenor: Halifax Herald Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (youth Court Proceeding With Related Adult Prosecutions) / Oral Application for Publication Ban During Youth Trial (interlocutory); Applicants Advised to Apply to Supreme Court
Outcome
Court declined to exercise jurisdiction and would not grant a publication ban in respect of the adult accuseds; applicants directed to apply to the Supreme Court
Legal Topics
Publication Ban, Jurisdiction, Fair Trial Rights, Freedom of Expression (section 2(b) Charter), Dagenais Test
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Media Law Constitutional Law Publication Ban Jurisdiction Fair Trial Rights Freedom of Expression (section 2(b) Charter) +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

T.(B.)

Accused Youth

Christopher Picco

Accused Adult / Applicant

Jerrico Upshaw

Accused Adult / Applicant

Halifax Herald Limited

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal (youth Court Proceeding With Related Adult Prosecutions) / Oral Application for Publication Ban During Youth Trial (interlocutory); Applicants Advised to Apply to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Youth Court judge has jurisdiction to grant a publication ban protecting the fair trial rights of adult accused who will be tried in a higher court
  2. 2 How to balance adult accused fair trial rights against media freedom under section 2(b) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether evidence heard in a youth trial can be the basis for a publication ban ordered by the youth court in relation to separate adult trials

Ratio Decidendi

The Youth Court judge lacks jurisdiction to grant a publication ban to protect the fair trial rights of adult accused who will be tried in the Supreme Court; such applications must be made to the trial judge or a judge at the level where the adult trial will be held, while the Youth Court retains jurisdiction only over the youth accused's fair trial rights.

Court Disposition

Court declined to exercise jurisdiction and would not grant a publication ban in respect of the adult accuseds; applicants directed to apply to the Supreme Court

Orders

  • No publication ban ordered by this Youth Court in respect of the adult accuseds for lack of jurisdiction
  • Applicants (Picco and Upshaw) are at liberty to apply to the Supreme Court for publication ban relief