R. v. Bell

R. v. Bell

The court must grant the applicant's requested testimonial accommodation under s.486.2(1) unless the order would interfere with the proper administration of justice; here CCTV testimony did not create an unacceptable risk of unfairness or impede the truth-seeking function, so the Crown's application was allowed.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2303
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Richard Terrance Bell; Complainant: M.L.; Complainant: K.P.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Testimonial Accommodation (s.486.2(1))
Outcome
Crown application allowed.
Legal Topics
Testimonial Accommodation, Closed Circuit Television, Screened Testimony, Proper Administration of Justice, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Testimonial Accommodation Closed Circuit Television Screened Testimony Proper Administration of Justice Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Richard Terrance Bell

Accused

M.L.

Complainant

K.P.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Testimonial Accommodation (s.486.2(1))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.486.2(1) requires the court to order the specific testimonial accommodation requested unless it would interfere with the proper administration of justice
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge retains discretion to choose a different form of testimonial accommodation absent a finding of interference
  3. 3 Whether closed-circuit television testimony in this case would interfere with the proper administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court must grant the applicant's requested testimonial accommodation under s.486.2(1) unless the order would interfere with the proper administration of justice; here CCTV testimony did not create an unacceptable risk of unfairness or impede the truth-seeking function, so the Crown's application was allowed.

Court Disposition

Crown application allowed.

Orders

  • The complainants, M.L. and K.P., shall testify from outside the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television.