R. v. Randell (D.D.), (2001) 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 191 (NFPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Case Date: February 16, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2001), 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 191 (NFPC)

R. v. Randell (D.D.) (2001), 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 191 (NFPC);

    600 A.P.R. 191

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MR.041

Her Majesty the Queen v. Darren Douglas Randell (1300A-503(01)(02)(03))

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

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

March 23, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with an indictable and two hybrid offences. The Crown initially failed to elect a mode of procedure. Pleas of not guilty were entered to all counts and a trial date was set for Provincial Court. Before trial, the Crown indicated that it wished to proceed by indictment on the hybrid offences. The accused objected and requested that the court forbid the Crown from exercising its discretion to proceed by indictment.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court concluded that the Crown could elect to proceed by indictment on the two hybrid offences.

Criminal Law - Topic 26

Prosecution of crime - Prosecutorial discretion - The accused was charged with one indictable and two hybrid offences - The Crown initially failed to elect a mode of procedure - Pleas of not guilty were entered to all counts and a trial date was set for Provincial Court - Before trial, the Crown indicated that it wished to proceed by indictment on the hybrid offences - The accused objected and requested that the court prohibit the Crown from exercising its discretion to proceed by indictment - He alleged prejudice (potentially increased penalties, increased expense and elimination of a possible defence) but not an improper motivation or abuse of process - The Newfoundland Provincial Court reviewed the nature of the Crown's discretion and the ambit of judicial review of that discretion - The court held that the accused was not prejudiced and granted the Crown's election.

Criminal Law - Topic 1176

Offences against public order - Firearms - Using firearm while committing indictable offence - The accused was charged with, inter alia, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence (Criminal Code, s. 85(1)(a)) - He argued that the words "indictable offence" in s. 85(1)(a) meant that if the Crown elected, or was deemed to have elected, to proceed by summary conviction on an underlying hybrid offence, it could never proceed with an offence under s. 85(1)(a) - The Newfoundland Provincial Court rejected the argument - The words "indictable offence" referred to the nature of the underlying offence committed - The offence had be serious enough to provide the Crown with the option to proceed by indictment - The Crown was not required to actually do so -The fact that the offence could be prosecuted by indictment was sufficient - See paragraphs 32 to 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 3904

Indictable offences - General principles - Choice of procedures - Election by Crown - [See Criminal Law - Topic 26 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7203

Summary conviction proceedings - General principles - Choice of procedure - Election by Crown - [See Criminal Law - Topic 26 ].

Words and Phrases

Indictable offence - The Newfoundland Provincial Court discussed the meaning of these words as used in s. 85(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 32 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. West (1915), 24 C.C.C. 249 (Ont. H.C.), affd. 25 C.C.C. 145 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

R. v. Jans (1990), 108 A.R. 324; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

R. v. Edmunds, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 233; 35 N.R. 611; 58 C.C.C.(2d) 485, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

R. v. O'Leary (T.J.) (1991), 97 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314; 308 A.P.R. 314; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 573 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 3].

R. v. K.S.V. (1994), 119 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 290; 370 A.P.R. 290; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 477 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

R. v. Durack (B.D.) (1998), 168 Sask.R. 36; 173 W.A.C. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

Weering v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1997), 101 B.C.A.C. 199; 164 W.A.C. 199; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 343; (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

R. v. Sterling (R.), Sterling (L.) and Sterling (T.) (1993), 113 Sask.R. 81; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

R. v. L.E. et al. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 244; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

R. v. Light (R.C.) and Hull (R.B.) (1993), 21 B.C.A.C. 241; 37 W.A.C. 241; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

R. v. Cole (D.) (2000), 183 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 568 A.P.R. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 7].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 9].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 9].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300; 2 C.R.(4th) 53, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 9].

Osiowy v. Linn, P.C.J. (1989), 77 Sask.R. 1; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Smythe, [1971] S.C.R. 680, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Century 21 Ramos Realty Inc. and Ramos (1987), 19 O.A.C. 25; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 37 D.L.R.(4th) 649; 29 C.R.R. 320, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Kelley (P.W.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 55; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 12].

R. v. Laws (D.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 353; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 12].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133; 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 13].

R. v. V.T., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 749; 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 32, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 13].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cook (D.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113; 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 14].

R. v. Jolivet, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 14].

Balderstone v. R. et al. (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 125; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 15].

Kostuch v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1995), 174 A.R. 109; 102 W.A.C. 109; 43 C.R.(4th) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 15].

R. v. Gougeon, Haesler and Gray (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 218 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Mitchell (1977), 121 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Robert (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 43 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Marcotullio (1978), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 470 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Bouchard (1976), 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 409; 17 A.P.R. 409 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Dosangh (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 309 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Kapoor (1980), 52 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Coupland (1978), 14 A.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(2d) 437 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Parkin (1986), 14 O.A.C. 150; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Quinn (1989), 28 Q.A.C. 155; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Burke (J.J.) (1992), 104 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 318; 329 A.P.R. 318; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Boutiller (R.E.) (1995), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 426 A.P.R. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. S.D. (1997), 154 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 225; 479 A.P.R. 225; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Karpinski, [1957] S.C.R. 343; 117 C.C.C. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Whithorn (1983), 152 C.L.R. 657 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 16].

United States v. Berger (1935), 395 U.S. 78 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 16].

R. v. H.W.J. (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 81; 23 W.A.C. 81; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Kenny (D.) (1996), 142 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 250; 445 A.P.R. 250; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 349 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.) (2000), 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 29].

Dallman v. R. (1942), 77 C.C.C. 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Society Brand Clothes Ltd., [1943] 1 D.L.R. 111 (Que. K.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Brown (B.B.) (1993), 83 Man.R.(2d) 216; 36 W.A.C. 216; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 275 (C.A.), revd., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 749; 173 N.R. 317; 97 Man.R.(2d) 169; 79 W.A.C. 169; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 38].

Vithiyananthan v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 3 F.C. 576; 187 F.T.R. 57 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. S.P., [1996] O.J. No. 4620 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Wilson, [1997] O.J. No. 459 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. J.W.D. (1997), 26 O.T.C. 381 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Martin, [1996] O.J. No. 4343 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. M.K. (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 151; 30 W.A.C. 151; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Clark (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 319 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Beselica and Nagle (1974), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 123 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

Brown v. Baugh and British Columbia (Attorney General) [1984] 1 S.C.R. 192; 53 N.R. 41; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Pringle, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1645; 97 N.R. 1; 34 O.A.C. 281; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 449, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Krug, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 255; 62 N.R. 263; 11 O.A.C. 187; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Roblin (1944), 82 C.C.C. 380 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. D.J.C. (1985), 21 C.C.C.(3d) 246 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Reid (B.W.) (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143; 525 A.P.R. 143 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 85(1)(a) [para. 33].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barton, P.G., The Power of the Crown to Proceed by Indictment or Summary Conviction (1971-72), 14 C.L.Q. 86, generally [para. 13, footnote 11].

Casey, J., The Irish Law Officers (1996), generally [para. 9, footnote 8].

Edwards, J., The Attorney General Politics and Public Interest (1984), generally [para. 9, footnote 8].

Morgan, D., Controlling Prosecutorial Powers - Judicial Review Abuse of Process and Section 7 of the Charter (1986-87), 29 C.L.Q. 15, generally [para. 9, footnote 8].

Roach, K., The Attorney General and the Charter Revisited (2000), U.T.L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 10, footnote 10].

Williams, G., Discretion in Prosecuting, [1965] Crim. L. Rev. 227, generally [para. 24, footnote 16].

Counsel:

Brenda Duffy, for Her Majesty the Queen;

Scott Burden, for the accused.

This matter was heard on February 16, 2001, before Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 23, 2001.