So you lose an evidentiary argument and the court allows
some potentially prejudicial evidence to be presented for some narrow purpose such as bias, impeachment or to show intent, similar plan, motive or scheme.
In considering the factors relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion, under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA1980), to extend the limitation period beyond that specified in LA 1980, s 11 what matters most is not the length of the delay itself, but the reasons for that delay and
its potentially prejudicial effect; moreover, it may be reasonable to delay issuing proceedings on account of the defendant's impecuniosity.
Not exact matches
Judges I've spoken to expressed no concern about such motions, but it's reasonable to suggest that the more
potentially inflammatory and therefore
prejudicial the evidence, the more difficult it might be for a judge to not be influenced or affected by it.
Justice Mercier acknowledged at the trial level in R v. Squires that the concerns over disruptive and
prejudicial effect that cameras in courtrooms and need to maintain the right to a fair trial could
potentially be addressed through time and experience, and envisioned circumstances where the court rules could be amended to allow televising of court proceedings.