Where an accused bears the onus of proof on an issue (such as the defence of mental illness) and delay has deprived the accused of evidence necessary to discharge that onus, the prejudice analysis for a permanent stay must distinctly address the impact of delay on the accused's ability to prove the matter, rather than applying the same analysis used where the Crown bears the onus. The passage in R v Edwards — that a trial is not unfair merely because the tribunal of fact determines issues on less than all relevant material — is not a compelling analogy where the onus on the central issue lies on the accused.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.