Sexual assault charges stayed against teen due to ‘unreasonable delay’

Sexual assault charges against a Pelican Narrows teenager have been stayed after a judge ruled the teen’s right to a timely trial was breached by an “unreasonable delay.”

Judge Mary Mcauley made her ruling in the northern circuit court last month for the teen, who cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. He was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference against two children under 16, and one count of assault against a third young person. The alleged offences happened between March 1 and April 30, 2017.

The details of the allegations were not heard in court because the charges were stayed before the case could go to trial. When a charge is stayed, there is still a yearlong window to reopen the case, should new evidence come to light.

In February, defence lawyer Ron Piche filed a charter application to quash the charges after the sexual assault trial was rescheduled for a third time in December, at the Crown’s request.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2016 Jordan decision ruled “the right to be tried within a reasonable time is central to the administration of Canada’s system of criminal justice . ... An unreasonable delay denies justice to the accused, victims and their families, and the public as a whole.”

The Jordan decision established a “presumptive ceiling” of 18 months for trials at the provincial court level, from the time charges are laid. Since the teen was charged in August 2018, the total delay would have been 22 months, had the sexual assault trial proceeded as scheduled in June.

The trial would have been even further delayed due to COVID -19, according to the decision.

Mcauley found the prior trial delays were related to issues with Crown witnesses. The Crown argued Piche had waived two of the delays through other lawyers appearing on his behalf. Piche argued he did not consent to any of the trial delays.

An unreasonable delay denies justice to the accused, victims and their families, and the public as a whole.

Defence delays do not count toward a delay breach. To refute the charter application, the Crown must prove there were exceptional circumstances in play, according to the Supreme Court.

Mcauley found in this case, one of the delays was beyond the Crown’s control when a youth witness’s mother died. This still resulted in a net delay of 19 months, she wrote.

“In addition, I am obliged to take into consideration the precharge delay of 15 months and 15 days, his young age, his unique circumstances, his significantly delayed cognitive development, institutional delay from December 18, 2019, to June 16, 2020, and the institutional delay as a result of the unfortunate position of having to reschedule his trial once again as a result of COVID-19,” Mcauley concluded, ordering a stay of proceedings.