R. v. Brown

R. v. Brown

Although Corrections did not comply with s.525's 'forthwith' requirement, the Court held that on the facts the delay had been ameliorated by subsequent case management, no custodial factors were shown warranting relief, a s.520 bail review had recently denied release, and with trial fixed for October 7, 2013 the accused's continued detention was not unjustified; accordingly the Court would not order release under s.525.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1027
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Patrick Steven Brown; Correctional Authority: British Columbia Corrections, Ministry of Justice
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Detention Review Under S.525 Criminal Code (pre Trial)
Outcome
s.525 application denied; accused not released from custody
Legal Topics
Section 525 Criminal Code, Detention Review, Unreasonable Delay, Section 11(b) Charter, Inherent Jurisdiction of Superior Courts, Custodial Obligations of Corrections
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail and Pre Trial Detention Procedural Law Section 525 Criminal Code Detention Review Unreasonable Delay Section 11(b) Charter Inherent Jurisdiction of Superior Courts +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Patrick Steven Brown

Accused

British Columbia Corrections, Ministry of Justice

Correctional Authority

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Detention Review Under S.525 Criminal Code (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the s.525 application was brought forthwith as required by statute
  2. 2 Scope of a s.525 detention review and applicable remedies
  3. 3 Whether delay in bringing the s.525 review justified release of the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Although Corrections did not comply with s.525's 'forthwith' requirement, the Court held that on the facts the delay had been ameliorated by subsequent case management, no custodial factors were shown warranting relief, a s.520 bail review had recently denied release, and with trial fixed for October 7, 2013 the accused's continued detention was not unjustified; accordingly the Court would not order release under s.525.

Court Disposition

s.525 application denied; accused not released from custody

Orders

  • Accused's s.525 application dismissed; no release ordered pending trial
  • Matter remains on calendar with trial scheduled to commence October 7, 2013