Right to a timely trial ‘cannot be lightly discarded’

Supreme Court affirms landmark ruling on court delays

OTTAWA — All players in the justice system need to do their part to target the “root causes” of unnecessary trial delays, the Supreme Court of Canada said Friday in affirming its landmark ruling on timely proceedings.

The high court ruled unanimously 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, N.L., 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 groundbreaking 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 were 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.

The court said trial judges can play an important role, for instance by denying an adjournment request on the basis it would result in an unacceptably long delay.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government would take time to consider the decision that will see Cody avoid a trial.

“But there’s no question that it’s part of what has become a bit of a troubling pattern,” Trudeau said. “And we need to make sure that we are working hard to ensure that justice is swift and properly meted out to anyone who commits crimes.”

The Conservatives have accused the Liberals of moving too slowly to appoint judges to vacant spots.