R. v. S.
Mr. S was facing two charges of failing to comply with his recognizance. The allegations revolved around a breach of two bails due to his consumption of alcohol. Mr. S. was a struggling alcoholic who had gotten help for his addition after he was charged and feared going back to jail would affect his rehabilitation. As the trial approached, Mr. S. became increasingly nervous as he did not have a defence on the merits of the case itself.
Looking carefully through disclosure, Ms. Bristow discovered that Mr. S. was not put on notice as to what documents were going to be introduced at trial, a requirement if the Crown wants to rely on certified copies of any documentary evidence. In order to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown must prove that Mr. S. was on a bail at the time of the alleged offences, and that the conditions he alleged to have breached were conditions of those bails.
Ms. Bristow vigorously argued that the notice provided was insufficient and that the documents should not be admitted into evidence. She argued that the Crown used an evidentiary shortcut to try to introduce the documents, and that if the Crown were going to do this, the rules must be complied with strictly.
After careful consideration, the Court agreed with Ms. Bristow. While Mr. S. may have been guilty on the merits, there were hoops that the Crown had to jump through in order to prove its case. Ms. Bristow ensured that the Crown’s failure to do so was not overlooked. As such, Mr. S. was found not guilty of both of the charges and permitted to continue his rehabilitation in the free world.
If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes
Here, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court.