R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right to a speedy trial under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right to a speedy trial under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
docket
| |
JoinMajority
| - Dickson C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé and Gonthier JJ. (en)
|
citations
| - [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 (en)
|
history
| - On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario (en)
|
majority
| |
ratio
| - Principles determined regarding whether the delay to have a trial is unreasonable under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (en)
|
has abstract
| - R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right to a speedy trial under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed. The appellants argued successfully that criminal charges against them should be stayed on the grounds that their trial had been unreasonably delayed, contrary to the Charter’s guarantee under Section 11(b) that "Any person charged with an offence has the right... to be tried within a reasonable time." Disagreeing with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Supreme Court found that the delays were indeed unreasonable and directed a stay of proceedings against the appellants. Thousands of pending criminal cases were consequently dismissed on similar grounds. (en)
|
case-name
| |
Concurrence
| - McLachlin J. (en)
- Sopinka J. (en)
- Lamer J. (en)
- Wilson J. (en)
|
decided-date
| |
full-case-name
| - Elijah Anton Askov, Ralph Hussey, Samuel Gugliotta and Edward Melo v. Her Majesty The Queen (en)
|
heard-date
| |
ruling
| - Askov appeal allowed; proceedings stayed (en)
|
SCC
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |