R. v. Earle, (1979) 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 464 (NFPC)

• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 21, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1979), 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 464 (NFPC)

R. v. Earle (1979), 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 464 (NFPC);

    61 A.P.R. 464

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Earle

(No. 6649)

Indexed As: R. v. Earle

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Magistrate Luther

August 21, 1979.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 80

Res judicata - Multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded - Circumstances when defence may be raised - After he was charged with a narcotics offence the accused was released on a recognizance on condition that he not have illegal drugs in his possession - Subsequently, he was found in possession of a narcotic and was arrested - He was charged with failing to comply with a condition of his recognizance contrary to section 133(3)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, and with possession with a narcotic contrary to section 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1 - The accused pleaded guilty to failing to comply with his recognizance and raised the defence of res judicata on the possession charge - The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the defence of res judicata was applicable and barred the conviction of the accused of possession under the Narcotic Control Act - See paragraphs 1 to 46 - The Provincial Court stated that the conviction for breach of recognizance should not be set aside or held in abeyance pending disposition of the possession charge, because the offences were of the same order of gravity - See paragraph 48.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple (1974), 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 451; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, appld. [para. 9].

R. v. Pinkerton, [1979] 3 W.W.R. 241 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Logeman (1978), 5 C.R.(3d) 219, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Beeman, [1978] 3 W.W.R. 29, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Harrison, 9 B.C.L.R. 199 (B.C.C.A.), appld. [para. 18].

R. v. Wildeman, [1978] 5 W.W.R. 477, not folld. [para. 16].

R. v. Loyer and Blouin (1978), 21 N.R. 181; 3 C.R.(3d) 105, appld. [para. 19].

R. v. John David Taylor (1979), 21 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 397; 56 A.P.R. 397, appld. [para. 25].

R. v. Winsor (1976), 9 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 310; 12 A.P.R. 310; refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Glenn (1977), 6 A.R. 429; 7 C.R.(3d) 46, not folld. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 133(3)(b).

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 3(1).

Counsel:

David C. Day, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Norman Whalen, for the accused.

This case was heard at St. John's, Newfoundland, before MAGISTRATE LUTHER, of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on August 21, 1979: