R. v. Prosper

R. v. Prosper

After calculating total delay (1118 days) and deducting defence-attributable delay (396 days) and agreed COVID exceptional periods, the remaining delay included an excessive roughly ten-month period between trial completion and mistrial declaration while the seized judge was on leave; that period, assessed under KGK, was markedly longer than reasonably necessary and contravened s.11(b), requiring a stay of proceedings on both counts.

Citation
2023 NSPC 27
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Tanya Rhodes Elizabeth Prosper
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Operation (summary) / Decision on Application for Stay of Proceedings (s.11(b) Charter)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted; charges stayed
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Unreasonable Delay, Stay of Proceedings (s.24(1) Charter), Jordan Framework, Mistrial, Verdict Deliberation (kgk)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Section 11(b) Unreasonable Delay Stay of Proceedings (s.24(1) Charter) Jordan Framework Mistrial Verdict Deliberation (kgk)

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Tanya Rhodes Elizabeth Prosper

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Operation (summary) / Decision on Application for Stay of Proceedings (s.11(b) Charter)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's s.11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached
  2. 2 Whether defence-attributable delay should be deducted from total delay
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances (COVID, mistrial) rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay

Ratio Decidendi

After calculating total delay (1118 days) and deducting defence-attributable delay (396 days) and agreed COVID exceptional periods, the remaining delay included an excessive roughly ten-month period between trial completion and mistrial declaration while the seized judge was on leave; that period, assessed under KGK, was markedly longer than reasonably necessary and contravened s.11(b), requiring a stay of proceedings on both counts.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted; charges stayed

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings entered in relation to both counts (ss.320.14(1)(a) and 320.14(1)(b) Criminal Code)
  • Proceedings dismissed and all associated process brought to an end