R. v. Barrett

R. v. Barrett

The application for a publication ban was dismissed because the accused failed to establish a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the second trial on the evidence presented, particularly given the approximately nine‑month interval between trials and the availability of effective alternative measures...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 NSSC 11
Parties
Applicant/accused: Thomas Barrett; Crown/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Intervenors/respondents (media): Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Cape Breton Post
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Publication Ban Application in Relation to Two Second Degree Murder Trials / Pre Trial Application: First Trial by Judge Alone Scheduled Jan 18, 2016; Second Trial by Judge and Jury Scheduled Sept 12, 2016
Outcome
Application for publication ban dismissed without costs
Legal Topics
Publication Ban, Open Court Principle, Fair Trial Rights, Dagenais Mentuck Test, Jury Impartiality, Costs
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Media Law Evidence Publication Ban Open Court Principle Fair Trial Rights Dagenais Mentuck Test +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Barrett

Applicant/accused

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/respondent

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Cape Breton Post

Intervenors/respondents (media)

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Publication Ban Application in Relation to Two Second Degree Murder Trials / Pre Trial Application: First Trial by Judge Alone Scheduled Jan 18, 2016; Second Trial by Judge and Jury Scheduled Sept 12, 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a publication ban should be granted on the first trial until conclusion of the second trial
  2. 2 Whether publication of the first trial would create a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the second trial
  3. 3 Whether reasonable alternative measures can mitigate any risk to a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a publication ban was dismissed because the accused failed to establish a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the second trial on the evidence presented, particularly given the approximately nine‑month interval between trials and the availability of effective alternative measures (challenge for cause and jury instructions); therefore the first part of the Dagenais-Mentuck test was not met and the ban was not necessary.

Court Disposition

Application for publication ban dismissed without costs

Orders

  • Application for publication ban dismissed
  • No costs awarded to any party