R. v. Howse (D.), (2006) 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73 (NLPC)

• Judge: Kennedy, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 18, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2006), 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73 (NLPC)

R. v. Howse (D.) (2006), 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73 (NLPC);

    863 A.P.R. 73

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. NO.031

Her Majesty the Queen v. Debbie Howse

(No. 0604A-00293 and 0605A-00503)

Indexed As: R. v. Howse (D.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

District of Clarenville

Kennedy, P.C.J.

October 18, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged in 2004 with theft over $5,000 and theft under $5,000. The accused applied to stay the proceedings on the basis that her right to be tried within a reasonable time (Charter, s. 11(b)) had been violated.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court dismissed the application. The length of delay in this case (20 months) was unreasonable. However, the accused had only established nominal or negligible specific prejudice.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The accused was charged in 2004 with theft over $5,000 and theft under $5,000 - Proof of one of the thefts was complicated and required expert evidence - There were delays in the disclosure of evidence - The accused applied to stay the proceedings on the basis that her right to be tried within a reasonable time (Charter, s. 11(b)) had been violated - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court dismissed the application - The length of delay in this case (20 months) was unreasonable and was attributable to Crown delays and institutional delays - However, the accused had only suffered inherent general prejudice and nominal or negligible specific prejudice - A stay of proceedings would only be ordered in the clearest of cases - The unreasonableness of the delay in this case did not override the right of society to have this matter prosecuted for trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. La (H.K.) et al. (1997), 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Bero (C.) (2000), 137 O.A.C. 336; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Crosbies Services Ltd., [2003] N.J. No. 31 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. A.J.P. (2001), 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63; 600 A.P.R. 63 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Reid (B.W.) (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143; 525 A.P.R. 143 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Herrington (W.) (2003), 179 O.A.C. 268; 68 O.R.(3d) 352 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Rogalsky (E.J.) et al. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 271; 81 W.A.C. 271; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 48; 189 N.R. 82; 137 Sask.R. 230; 107 W.A.C. 230, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. J.J.J. - see R. v. Jack (J.).

R. v. Jack (J.) (2002), 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 224; 637 A.P.R. 224 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Chrisanthopoulos (2002), 213 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 247; 640 A.P.R. 247 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Jordan, [1994] N.J. No. 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Williamson (K.) (2000), 132 O.A.C. 92; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. R.C. (2001), 203 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 26; 610 A.P.R. 26; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 119 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Fagan (R.J.) (1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 106; 189 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Stewart (B.C.) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 213; 227 W.A.C. 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stuart, Don, Annotation to R. v. Collins (1995), 40 C.R.(4th) 273, p. 277 [para. 29].

Counsel:

Mark Linehan, for the Crown;

Wayne Burden, for the defence.

This application was heard by Kennedy, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following oral ruling on October 18, 2006.