M. Lacy

The Crown applied for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of application for certiorari to quash the respondent's discharge at a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown had served the notice on the respondent's former counsel, who failed to promptly inform the Crown that they were no longer retained.

The court found that the Crown acted with due diligence, as it was entitled to assume the former counsel was still acting, and that there was an arguable basis for the certiorari application.

The extension of time was granted.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to trial on a charge of defamatory libel.

The charge arose from a poster the applicant displayed publicly, which alleged that the managers of a teen band had engaged in 'abuse' and 'inappropriate behaviour' towards his son, and had misappropriated charity funds.

The reviewing judge found that the statements in the poster were expressions of opinion and value judgments based on a private dispute, rather than false statements of fact.

As there was no evidence of a 'calculated falsehood' or knowledge of falsity, the preliminary hearing judge exceeded her jurisdiction.

The application was allowed and the committal was quashed.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to elicit from its witness in chief that she had given a previous inconsistent statement because she was afraid of the accused.

The defence objected, arguing this constituted impermissible oath-helping.

The court ruled that eliciting the fact of a previous inconsistent statement in chief does not constitute oath-helping, as it detracts from rather than bolsters the witness's truthfulness.

However, the court held that the explanation for the previous statement should generally wait for cross-examination and re-examination.

The Crown was permitted to elicit the fact of the previous statements and the timing of the witness's change of heart.