Sex offender’s co-accused loses trial-delay argument
The co-accused of a Vancouver movie producer convicted of sex offences has lost his bid to have his case tossed on the grounds of unreasonable delay.
Alan Teck Meng Lai is on trial for allegedly drugging two women and then sexually assaulting them. Before his trial could be concluded, he argued that his rights had been violated because the case had taken an unreasonable amount of time.
The Crown’s theory is that in casual dating situations he secretly administered the date-rape-drug GHB to one complainant and was a party to it being administered to a second victim by his former co-accused, Raymond Law, and then sexually assaulted both victims while they were under the influence of the drug.
The offences involving the first victim are alleged to have occurred at Richmond in November 2012. He’s accused of attacking the second victim at Vancouver in June 2013. Lai was charged in August 2013.
In a ruling released Tuesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Terence Schultes noted that on the face of it the case had exceeded the 30-months delay limit for superior court cases set by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case from 2016.
Lai’s lawyers argued that none of the exceptions to the applicability of that ceiling applied in the case at bar and that a stay of proceedings was therefore required.
The Crown’s position was that when the appropriate deductions for certain periods of delay were made, the net amount of delay fell below the ceiling. The prosecution also argued that delay was excused due to the complexity of the case.
In the ruling that took more than two hours to read out in court, the judge noted that the application was “very thoroughly” presented by the lawyers and the case law reviewed comprehensively. Schultes determined that the overall delay was 57 months from the time the charges were laid to the anticipated conclusion of the case. He found that after certain “exceptional events” were subtracted, there still remained a little over 33 months of delay.
In balancing the factors, he said that once the case had gotten past difficulties involving Crown disclosure, it had proceeded with “reasonable efficiency” despite a considerable amount of institutional delay at the Provincial and B.C. Supreme Court levels.