Case information

Criminal law — Trial — Procedure — Right of accused to be present during trial — Effect of designation of counsel of record — Accused executing a designation of counsel pursuant to s. 650.01 of the Criminal Code, allowing counsel to appear without the accused being present —Trial judge communicating with counsel about jury charge in accused’s absence — Accused convicted — Procedure for excusing an accused from attending portions of jury trial where a designation of counsel has been filed — Whether a designation of counsel permits trial judges to direct that portions of proceedings take place in the absence of the accused — Whether a designation of counsel permits trial judges to conduct substantive portions of the trial in chambers with the accused and public excluded — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 650, 650.01, 650.1

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

Applicant Carl Douglas Snelgrove executed a designation of counsel pursuant to s. 650.01 of the Criminal Code on April 26, 2016, shortly after being indicted on a charge of sexual assault. This designation allowed his appointed counsel to represent him in connection with the criminal proceedings when his personal attendance was not required by law or directed by a judge.

Mr. Snelgrove’s designated counsel represented him in all proceedings related to his indictment. During the trial, the trial judge communicated with counsel via email and in-person regarding the jury charge; Mr. Snelgrove was not involved in these email communications and was not present for the in-person discussions.

Mr. Snelgrove was convicted. He retained new counsel and appealed from his conviction, partly on the basis that the trial judge violated s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code — which requires an accused to be present during the whole of their trial — by conducting discussions with counsel when Mr. Snelgrove was not present. The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed Mr. Snelgrove’s appeal, holding that s. 650(1) was not violated in the circumstances.