D. Negandhi

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay criminal harassment and distribution of intimate images charges against the respondent due to alleged late and incomplete disclosure.

The trial judge found the Crown breached its disclosure obligations regarding police notes of conversations with the complainant, which the defence claimed were necessary to determine a potential conflict of interest.

On appeal, the Superior Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the Crown breached its disclosure obligations, as the requested information was irrelevant and the defence was engaged in a fishing expedition.

The court also found the trial judge erred in his application of the stay of proceedings test and in finding a conflict of interest had crystallized.

The stay was lifted and a new trial ordered.

The accused, charged with armed robbery, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a statement made to police, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 10(a) breach, as the accused knew the date and place of the robbery.

A s. 10(b) breach occurred when police questioned the accused at the roadside and seized his clothing before he could consult duty counsel.

However, the delay in facilitating access to counsel during the booking process was reasonable.

Under s. 24(2), the roadside statements and clothing were excluded, but the main interview statement was admitted as it was voluntary and followed a 'fresh start' caution.