R. v. Hill (J.C.), (2005) 239 N.S.R.(2d) 153 (PC)

• Judge: Ross, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: October 06, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2005), 239 N.S.R.(2d) 153 (PC);2005 NSPC 50

R. v. Hill (J.C.) (2005), 239 N.S.R.(2d) 153 (PC);

    760 A.P.R. 153

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.063

The Queen v. James Christian Hill

(1534961; 2005 NSPC 50)

Indexed As: R. v. Hill (J.C.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Ross, P.C.J.

October 11, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with unlawful entry under s. 349(1) of the Criminal Code and assault with a weapon under s. 267(a). He was released on an undertaking with conditions. He subsequently appeared in Provincial Court and pleaded not guilty and a trial date was set. Prior to the trial date he appeared in court with counsel seeking to change the release conditions. The Crown was not prepared to consent and argued that the Provincial Court judge had no jurisdiction to proceed to hear the application.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the accused's application unless the Crown consented.

Criminal Law - Topic 3317

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Jurisdiction of court - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3319 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3319

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Vacating, cancelling or varying interim release order - The accused pleaded not guilty in Provincial Court to two criminal offences and was released on an undertaking with conditions - Prior to the trial date he appeared in court with counsel seeking to change the release conditions - The Crown was not prepared to consent and argued that the Provincial Court judge had no jurisdiction to proceed to hear the application - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that there were three situations where a provincial court judge did not require Crown consent before proceeding to hear an accused's application to change release conditions; however, this was not one of those situations and thus the court had no jurisdiction to consider the accused's application unless the Crown consented.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hardiman (C.L.) (2002), 208 N.S.R.(2d) 24; 652 A.P.R. 24 (S.C.), affd. (2003), 211 N.S.R.(2d) 358; 662 A.P.R. 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Smith (D.J.) (2003), 214 N.S.R.(2d) 213; 671 A.P.R. 213 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Greener (S.R.) (2003), 220 N.S.R.(2d) 9; 694 A.P.R. 9 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Kell (G.C.) (2004), 227 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 720 A.P.R. 356 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Wilder, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2136 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McCreery (1996), 110 C.C.C.(3d) 561 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Sood, [1992] O.J. No. 2842 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Gessleman (D.A.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 710 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Pires, [1999] B.C.J. No. 3187 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Taylor, [2005] O.J. No. 1789 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Michaud, [2000] S.J. No. 846 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321; 87 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 222 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Braithwaite (1980), 45 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 86 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 523(2) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Trotter, Gary T., The Law of Bail in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), generally [para. 25].

Counsel:

Shane Russell, for the Crown;

Donald MacLennan, for the defence.

This matter was heard on September 27 and October 6, 2005, at Sydney, Nova Scotia, by Ross, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following oral judgment on October 11, 2005, with written reasons filed on November 8, 2005.