R. v. T.(B.) 2012 NSPC 60

From Ad IDEM / CMLA

Jump to: navigation, search

Note

In Nova Scotia, a youth court judge trying a youth for murder (provincial court), refused to entertain a ban application from an adult co-accused who has been committed to be tried in Supreme Court on the basis she had no jurisdiction.

Decision Summary

The case relied on para.16 of Dagenais which says any discretionary ban application is to be brought to the trial judge, if appointed, or if not, to the highest judge who could hear the case (here, a superior court judge).

The Honourable Anne Derrick states:

The question of the rights of the media and how those rights and the fair trial rights are to be balanced against each other according to the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, that has to be determined in the Supreme Court. I do not have jurisdiction over any determination with respect to the nature or scope or extent to which safeguards are required in relation to the fair trial rights of these adult accused. I do, in my view, have jurisdiction, obviously, over the fair trial rights of T. (B.). As I indicated, T. (B.) is not seeking a ban on publication. If he were, I would consider myself – or if he does – I would consider myself to have jurisdiction in respect of his fair trial rights and my obligation to then do the balancing with respect to the rights of the media.


References

See:R. v. T.(B.) 2012 NSPC 60.

Personal tools