R. v. W.H.A.

R. v. W.H.A.

Balancing safety concerns against the appearance of fairness, the Crown failed to demonstrate restraints were necessary in the courtroom given the absence of demonstrated recent safety or escape risk; the use of leg shackles in view of jurors would materially risk prejudicing the trial, therefore the accused shall not be shackled in view of jurors and may sit at counsel table with sheriffs present.

Citation
2011 NSSC 166
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: W. H. A.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Jury Trial — Application Concerning Restraints and Seating During Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part: no leg shackles in view of jurors; accused permitted to sit at counsel table; sheriffs to remain present for security.
Legal Topics
Restraints/shackling, Presumption of Innocence, Jury Fairness, Trial Judge Discretion, Courtroom Seating
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Courtroom Security Evidence and Procedure Restraints/shackling Presumption of Innocence Jury Fairness Trial Judge Discretion Courtroom Seating

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

W. H. A.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Jury Trial — Application Concerning Restraints and Seating During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused should be restrained by leg shackles in the presence of the jury
  2. 2 Whether the accused should be permitted to sit at counsel table in the presence of the jury

Ratio Decidendi

Balancing safety concerns against the appearance of fairness, the Crown failed to demonstrate restraints were necessary in the courtroom given the absence of demonstrated recent safety or escape risk; the use of leg shackles in view of jurors would materially risk prejudicing the trial, therefore the accused shall not be shackled in view of jurors and may sit at counsel table with sheriffs present.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: no leg shackles in view of jurors; accused permitted to sit at counsel table; sheriffs to remain present for security.

Orders

  • Absent a change in circumstances, the accused will not be shackled inside the courtroom or in the view of jurors.
  • Absent a change in circumstances, the accused will continue to sit at counsel table.