R. v. Lyons, (1984) 62 N.S.R.(2d) 383 (CoCt)

• Case Date: January 30, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 383 (CoCt)

R. v. Lyons (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 383 (CoCt);

    136 A.P.R. 383

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Lyons

(C.R. 8713)

Indexed As: R. v. Lyons

Nova Scotia County Court

District Number One

O Hearn, J.C.C.

January 30, 1984.

Summary:

The Crown applied under s. 688 of the Criminal Code of Canada to have the accused declared a dangerous offender and to impose an indeterminate period of detention upon him. The accused challenged the validity of s. 688, submitting that, inter alia, it would deny him his right "not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment", as guaranteed by s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Nova Scotia County Court held that an indeterminate period of detention under s. 688 did not deny the accused's right under s. 12 of the Charter, because it was not cruel and unusual.

Civil Rights - Topic 3826

Cruel and unusual punishment - What constitutes - Indeterminate detention - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 12 - The Nova Scotia County Court held that finding an accused to be a dangerous offender under s. 688 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and imposing an indeterminate period of detention upon him, did not deny the accused's right "not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment", as guaranteed under s. 12 of the Charter.

Criminal Law - Topic 6501

Dangerous offenders - Detention - General - The Nova Scotia County Court held that finding an accused to be a dangerous offender under s. 688 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and imposing an indeterminate period of detention upon him, did not deny the accused's right "not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" as guaranteed under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mitchell (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 42 O.R.(2d) 481 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Roestad (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 564 (Ont. C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Hatchwell, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 39; 21 C.C.C.(2d) 201; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 419, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Shand (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 23 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Miller and Cockriell, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680; 11 N.R. 386; 31 C.C.C.(2d) 177, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Saxell (1980), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 176 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Simon (No. 3) (1982), 38 A.R. 393; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 557, refd to. [para. 2].

Shingoose et al. v. Minister of Social Services (1983), 26 Sask.R. 235, refd to. [para. 2].

Soenen v. Thomas et al. (1984), 48 A.R. 31 (Alta Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Mulcahy, [1963] 10 C.C.L. 39 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 12 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ouimet Report [para. 3].

Counsel:

A. Reid, for the Prosecution;

B. Beach and D. Thomas, for the defence.

This application was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before O Hearn, J.C.C., of the Nova Scotia County Court of District Number One, who delivered the following judgment orally on January 30, 1984.