R. v. Maillet, (1985) 64 N.B.R.(2d) 199 (PC)

• Judge: Dumas, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: May 15, 1985
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1985), 64 N.B.R.(2d) 199 (PC)

R. v. Maillet (1985), 64 N.B.R.(2d) 199 (PC);

    64 R.N.-B.(2e) 199; 165 A.P.R. 199

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

R. v. Maillet

Indexed As: R. v. Maillet

Répertorié: R. v. Maillet

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Dumas, P.C.J.

May 15, 1985.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused was convicted of unlawful possession of undersized lobsters, contrary to s. 3(3)(b) of the Lobster Fishery Regulations. The accused appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision unreported in this series of reports, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 53 N.B.R.(2d) 69; 138 A.P.R. 69, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

At the new trial, the accused argued that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was denied.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court agreed with the accused and ordered a stay of proceedings.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - "Within a reasonable time" - What constitutes - In the 18 months since an offence allegedly occurred, the crime was investigated, a charge laid, a trial held, a conviction entered, appeal heard, another appeal heard and a new trial ordered - The New Brunswick Provincial Court considered only delay subsequent to the new trial being ordered, in determining whether the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed - See paragraphs 10 to 12.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - "Within a reasonable time" - What constitutes - Ten months elapsed since the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial and the Crown applied to have the matter set down for a new trial - During that time the Crown had advised the accused of its intention not to proceed with the new trial - The charge, however, was never formally withdrawn or dismissed - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the delay was prima facie excessive - The court held that the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated - See paragraphs 14 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Krakowski (1983), 5 C.R.R. 16 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 3].

Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, ref'd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Antoine (1983), 34 C.R.(3d) 136 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Beason (1983), 36 C.R.(3d) 73 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Heaslip et al. (1983), 1 O.A.C. 81; 36 C.R.(3d) 309, ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Cameron (1982), 1 C.R.R. 289, ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Boire et al. (1983), 36 C.R.(3d) 364, ref'd to. [para. 17].

Re Regina and Carter (1983), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 173, ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Rahey (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 275; 141 A.P.R. 275; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 297 (N.S.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. LeBlanc (1984), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 148 A.P.R. 1, dist. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(b) [paras. 1-2, 10, 16, 28]; sect. 24(1) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Michel Leger, for the Crown;

Louis-Felix LeBlanc, for the defendant.

This charge was heard before Dumas, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, whose decision was delivered on May 15, 1985, at Moncton, N.B.