R. v. T.D., (2005) 230 N.S.R.(2d) 298 (CA)
|Judge:||Bateman, Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Nova Scotia Court of Appeal|
|Case Date:||January 27, 2005|
|Citations:||(2005), 230 N.S.R.(2d) 298 (CA);2005 NSCA 30|
R. v. T.D. (2005), 230 N.S.R.(2d) 298 (CA);
729 A.P.R. 298
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.032
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. T.D. a young person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (respondent)
(CAC 220321; 2005 NSCA 30)
Indexed As: R. v. T.D.
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Bateman, Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A.
February 17, 2005.
A trial judge acquitted a youth of assaulting a police officer engaged in the execution of his duty and assault causing bodily harm but convicted him of public mischief. The Crown appealed the acquittals. The youth cross-appealed his conviction.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and cross-appeal and ordered a new trial respecting all three charges.
Editor's note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.
Police - Topic 3086
Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - A trial judge acquitted a youth of assaulting a police officer engaged in the execution of his duty and assault causing bodily harm - The trial judge ruled, inter alia, that because the officer failed to effect a lawful arrest, the officer had no right to attempt to detain the accused - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that this ruling was erroneous - The acquittals were based on the erroneous assumption that the officer could not detain the youth short of a formal arrest - The courts had recognized a power of detention for investigative purposes by police, even when there was no formal arrest - The trial judge erred by failing to consider the requirements of a valid detention short of arrest - See paragraphs 15 to 21.
R. v. Sheppard (C.),  1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Cassidy,  2 S.C.R. 345; 100 N.R. 321; 36 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Audet (Y.),  2 S.C.R. 171; 197 N.R. 172; 175 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 446 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Delorey (J.L.) (2004), 226 N.S.R.(2d) 59; 714 A.P.R. 59; 2004 NSCA 95, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Braich (A.) et al.,  1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].
Daniel A. MacRury, for the appellant;
Denise Boudreau, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 27, 2005, by Bateman, Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Fichaud, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on February 17, 2005.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP