N.L. man wins Supreme Court appeal over too-long drug trial
Top court rules right to a timely trial ‘cannot be lightly discarded’
The Supreme Court of Canada is standing by its groundbreaking decision on ensuring timely criminal trials.
In a unanimous decision Friday, the high court ruled that a Newfoundland and Labrador man facing drug and weapon charges should not go to trial under new rules spelled out last July for determining unjustifiable court delays.
The latest decision comes amid intense public and political debate over the time limits for trials, including a Senate committee report this week that expressed concern over accused criminals walking free.
The Supreme Court stood its ground on the need for timeliness in ruling on the case of James Cody, who was arrested in Conception Bay in January 2010 and charged with drug possession for the purposes of trafficking and possession of a prohibited weapon.
For various reasons, Cody’s trial was not slated to begin until late January 2015, five years and 21 days after the arrest.
The trial judge stayed the criminal proceedings against Cody in December 2014 due to the delay, a decision that was overturned by the Newfoundland and Labrador appeal court using transitional provisions of the new framework set out by the Supreme Court.
In its landmark decision last year, the high court cited a “culture of complacency” in the justice system and said the old means of determining whether a person’s constitutional right to a timely trial had been infringed was too complex and unpredictable.
Under the new framework, an unreasonable delay would be presumed should proceedings — from the criminal charge to conclusion of a trial — exceed 18 months in provincial court, or 30 months in superior court.
However, those benchmarks are not set in stone, the court cautioned.
The Crown could challenge the notion that a delay is unreasonable by demonstrating “exceptional circumstances,” a majority of the court said in its reasons.
These circumstances could include something unforeseen and beyond the Crown’s control, such as a sudden illness, or a case requiring extradition of an accused from another country. They might also arise in “particularly complex” cases that involve disclosure of many documents, a large number of witnesses or a significant need for expert evidence.
The Supreme Court also said that as a transitional measure for cases already in the system, the new framework must be applied “flexibly and contextually.”
In the Cody case, the high court said there was a net delay of 36.5 months after applicable deductions and concluded that the Crown could not show the delay was justified. The court therefore said the order of the trial judge to halt proceedings against Cody must be restored.
“This appeal is yet another example of why change is necessary,” the Supreme Court said in its reasons for the decision.
Michael Crystal, a lawyer for Cody, welcomed the ruling.
“This case is all about access to justice,” Crystal said.
“It is about the dignity of a trial. It is about the court saying everyone who participates in the process — defence lawyers, Crown attorneys, prosecutors — you have an obligation to work hard, do your jobs, but do it expeditiously.”
The judges noted that a number of provincial attorneys general who intervened in the Cody case asked the court to modify the new framework to provide for more flexibility in deducting and justifying delay.
The court said that like any of its precedents, the 2016 decision “must be followed and it cannot be lightly discarded or overruled.”