R. v. Steadman

R. v. Steadman

Application dismissed. Court found total delay would be 60 months but attributable and effective delay approximately 50 months; significant portion of delay was reasonably explained by case complexity and legitimate Crown decision to await principal's trial to avoid impractical repetition and conserve resources;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 BCSC 597
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Howard Franklin Steadman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Charter S.11(b) and S.7 (application Heard May 6 9, 2008)
Outcome
application dismissed; stay of proceedings denied; liberty to renew after conclusion of trial evidence
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay (charter S.11(b)), Stay of Proceedings, S.7 Charter Residual Rights, Accessory After the Fact, Disclosure, Pre Trial Adjournment
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Unreasonable Delay (charter S.11(b)) Stay of Proceedings S.7 Charter Residual Rights Accessory After the Fact Disclosure +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Howard Franklin Steadman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Charter S.11(b) and S.7 (application Heard May 6 9, 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay of prosecution breached s.11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings is the appropriate remedy
  3. 3 Whether Crown abuse of process or s.7 breach arising from decision to await principal's trial

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed. Court found total delay would be 60 months but attributable and effective delay approximately 50 months; significant portion of delay was reasonably explained by case complexity and legitimate Crown decision to await principal's trial to avoid impractical repetition and conserve resources; prejudice to accused, while real (community stigma, stress, some lost evidence), was not sufficiently serious or irremediable to render delay unconstitutional nor to justify a stay; accused granted liberty to renew application after evidence concluded.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; stay of proceedings denied; liberty to renew after conclusion of trial evidence

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings dismissed
  • Liberty for the accused to renew application following conclusion of evidence at trial