R. v. Williams

R. v. Williams

Having applied Hart's three-factor framework and the Darville test, the judge concluded the complainant's evidence was critical, her absences were not shown to taint the integrity of the entire proceeding, and reasonable ameliorative measures (screen, MLSN support, witness warrant and scheduling accommodations) created a realistic prospect of procuring her attendance; accordingly an adjournment was the appropriate remedy and exclusion of evidence or a stay was not warranted.

Citation
2019 NSPC 48
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Danielle Lynn Williams; Accused: Shauna Elisha Allison; Complainant: MB
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Adjournment Application Re Witness Attendance
Outcome
Court granted the Crown's adjournment request, declined to strike the complainant's evidence or enter a judicial stay, set a trial continuation when parties were available and scheduled a status date regarding the witness warrant and possible support person.
Legal Topics
Right to Make Full Answer and Defence, Cross Examination, Witness Attendance and Warrants, Testimonial Aids (s.486.2), Trial Adjournment (darville), Remedies: Stay/strike Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Indigenous/gladue Considerations Right to Make Full Answer and Defence Cross Examination Witness Attendance and Warrants Testimonial Aids (s.486.2) +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Danielle Lynn Williams

Accused

Shauna Elisha Allison

Accused

MB

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Adjournment Application Re Witness Attendance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant's failure to attend trial continuations or complete cross-examination justified striking her evidence or entering a judicial stay
  2. 2 Whether the Crown's request for an adjournment to procure the witness should be granted under Darville
  3. 3 Application of the Hart factors (reason for unresponsiveness, impact, ameliorative action) to a witness who fails to attend

Ratio Decidendi

Having applied Hart's three-factor framework and the Darville test, the judge concluded the complainant's evidence was critical, her absences were not shown to taint the integrity of the entire proceeding, and reasonable ameliorative measures (screen, MLSN support, witness warrant and scheduling accommodations) created a realistic prospect of procuring her attendance; accordingly an adjournment was the appropriate remedy and exclusion of evidence or a stay was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Court granted the Crown's adjournment request, declined to strike the complainant's evidence or enter a judicial stay, set a trial continuation when parties were available and scheduled a status date regarding the witness warrant and possible support person.

Orders

  • Grant Crown adjournment and set trial continuation on a date when all parties indicated availability
  • Refuse defence applications to strike the complainant's evidence or enter a judicial stay