R. v. Deol, Gill and Randev, (1979) 20 A.R. 595 (QB)

• Judge: Kerans, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 24, 1979
• Citations: (1979), 20 A.R. 595 (QB)

R. v. Deol (1979), 20 A.R. 595 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Deol, Gill and Randev

(7901 03982)

Indexed As: R. v. Deol, Gill and Randev

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Kerans, J.

October 24, 1979.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 2925

Jurisdiction - Superior court judges - Power to order separate trials - An accused was arraigned for trial, but no judge was specifically assigned to hear the trial - Before trial the accused brought an application to have counts tried separately and to be tried separately from his fellow accused - The Crown challenged the jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench to hear the application - The judge of the Court of Queen's Bench held that he had jurisdiction to hear the application, notwithstanding that the application was not made at trial - See paragraphs 1 to 22 - The judge held that he, having entertained the application was not bound to hear the trial - See paragraphs 23 to 24 - The judge discussed good practice in the circumstances and held that good practice would dictate that such an application be made earlier than the trial date - See paragraph 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 4487

Procedure - Trial - Attendance of accused - The accused made an application to have counts tried separately and to be tried separately from his fellow accused - The application was made prior to the trial date - The accused was voluntarily not present at the hearing of the application - The Crown submitted that the accused was required to be present - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the accused on such an application could waive the requirement that he be present - See paragraphs 36 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Emkeit (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 309, appld. [para. 6].

R. v. Haney (1924), 43 C.C.C. 297, not folld. [para. 9].

R. v. Philbin, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 122; 6 A.R. 506, appld. [para. 11].

R. v. Auld et al. (1957), 26 C.R. 266, dist. [para. 14].

R. v. Quiring et al. (1975), 19 C.C.C.(2d) 337, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Grondkowski et al. (1946), 31 Cr. App. R. 116, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Scarrot (1977), 65 Cr. App. R. 125, consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Hatton, 39 C.C.C.(2d) 281, consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Sweitzer, [1978] 3 W.C.B. 318, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Grimaldi, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 264; 10 A.R. 93, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Lane et al., [1970] 1 C.C.C. 196, appld. [para. 28].

R. v. Meunier (1965), 48 C.R. 14, affd. 50 C.R. 75 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 38].

R. v. Romer, 23 C.C.C. 235, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Page, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 90, appld. [para. 42].

R. v. Paquette (1979), 17 A.R. 375; 29 N.R. 83 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 43].

R. v. Ginoux, 15 C.R.N.S. 117, dist. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 431.1(1), sect. 431.1(4) [para. 4]; sect. 520(4) [para. 5]; sect. 529(1) [para. 3]; sect. 557(1) [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.), vol. 9, p. 441 et seq. [para. 18].

Counsel:

B.W. Duncan, for the Crown;

D.P. Maguire, for the applicants.

This case was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before KERANS, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on October 24, 1979: