R. v. Skinner (J.K.), (1989) 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 123 (NFTD)

Judge:Easton, J.
Court:Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division
Case Date:September 28, 1989
Jurisdiction:Newfoundland and Labrador
Citations:(1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 123 (NFTD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Skinner (J.K.) (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 123 (NFTD);

    249 A.P.R. 123

MLB headnote and full text

Joseph Kyrl Skinner (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Newfoundland (respondent)

(1989 G.B. No. 33)

Indexed As: R. v. Skinner (J.K.)

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Trial Division

Easton, J.

October 10, 1989.

Summary:

The accused was charged with break and entry, contrary to s. 306(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground that his right to a trial within a reasonable time was infringed.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the application and held that the systemic delay was unreasonable.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials, due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Within a reasonable time - What constitutes - Accused was charged with break and entry - Charges laid on October 9, 1987, and preliminary inquiry completed on November 3, 1987 - Trial date set for October 19, 1989 - Delay of 21 months in producing preliminary inquiry transcript - Accused applied for a stay of proceedings because his s. 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time was infringed - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, granted the stay - The court also held that there was no requirement that the accused demonstrate actual prejudice - See paragraph 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 3267

Trials, due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Onus on accused - No onus to demonstrate delay resulted in actual prejudice - Twenty-four months between date charge laid and date of trial - Delay result of systemic failure which required 21 months to produce preliminary inquiry transcript - Accused applied to have proceedings stayed because his s. 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time was infringed - Crown submitted that the accused was not prejudiced by the delay - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, granted the stay - The court stated that there was no requirement that the accused suffered actual prejudice - See paragraph 13.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Harris (1989), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 43; 231 A.P.R. 43, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Simms (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 130; 249 A.P.R. 130, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Edwards (R.) (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 249 A.P.R. 139, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Edwards (A.M.J.) (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 141; 249 A.P.R. 141, refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(b) [paras. 1, 10, 13].

Counsel:

Edward J. Cardwell, for the applicant;

Glen W. Picco, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 28, 1989, by Easton, J., of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, who filed the following judgment on October 10, 1989.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP