R. v. Blomme, (1978) 16 A.R. 308 (TD)

• Judge: Shannon, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 10, 1978
• Citations: (1978), 16 A.R. 308 (TD)

R. v. Blomme (1978), 16 A.R. 308 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Blomme

Indexed As: R. v. Blomme

Alberta Supreme Court

Trial Division

Judicial District of Calgary

Shannon, J.

October 10, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused applicant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1.

At the preliminary inquiry the applicant was discharged. Subsequently a new information was sworn in identical language to the original charging the applicant with the same offence.

The accused applied to a judge of the Provincial Court to have the proceedings stayed for abuse of process.

The Provincial Court ruled that abuse of process was not available to the accused in the circumstances. The accused applied to the Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, to have the proceedings stayed on the ground of abuse of process.

The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the accused's application - see paragraph 4. See also R. v. Rourke, 16 N.R. 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

General principles - Abuse of process - What constitutes - Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1 - The accused applicant was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1 - At the preliminary inquiry the accused was discharged - Subsequently a new information was sworn in identical language to the original charging the accused with the same offence - The accused applied to have the proceedings stayed for abuse of process - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the accused's application - The Trial Division held that the laying of the second information did not, of itself, create the right to have the proceedings stayed on the ground of abuse of process - See paragraph 4.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Potter, 1 A.R. 415; [1977] 1 W.W.R. 592; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 337, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Forrester, 37 C.R.N.S. 320, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Orysiuk, 6 A.R. 548; [1978] 1 C.R.(3d) 111, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Ewanchuk, [1974] 4 W.W.R. 230, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Sommervill, 40 C.R. 384; (1963), 3 C.C.C. 240, refd to. [para. 4].

Statutes Noticed:

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1 [para. 2].

Counsel:

S.R. Creagh, for the Crown;

M.L. Moore, for the applicant.

This case was heard by SHANNON, J., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division.

The judgment of SHANNON, J., was delivered at Calgary, Alberta, on October 10, 1978.