Court complains of justice delayed
The B. C. Court of Appeal has underscored the lack of governmentfunded resources for the Provincial Court in a decision upholding the dismissal of charges against two accused cocaine traffickers.
Quoting an earlier ruling by the high bench, the justices added their voices to the chorus decrying the crisis in the legal system saying, “the protectors of the public interest have failed to live up to the standard expected of them.”
The panel backed B. C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Leask’s decision to stay the serious charges because it took more than five years for the men to reach trial — 62.5 months.
Even though it involved the complicated prosecution of a $ 500,000, 20- kilogram shipment of the drug, Justice Leask was appalled at the lengthy delay and so were the appellate judges.
“I am mindful of the struggle the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court has described in his effort to stretch dwindling resources in the face of an increasing workload,” Justice Catherine Ryan, supported by colleagues Mary Saunders and Peter Lowry, wrote in her reasons for judgment, released Jan. 10.
“While its complement of judges has declined, the Provincial Court has, through rule changes and the implementation of a judicial case management system, attempted to reduce delays in its court. This appeal demonstrates that these prudent measures were insufficient to address the problems this case presented.”
In the unanimous judgment, the court said the difficulties the case presented were “significantly compounded by the paucity of judicial resources.”
“The leading motif running throughout the discussions [ among the lawyers and trial judge] is not the unavailability of counsel, but rather the inability of the court to find any time, let alone blocks of time beyond two- week segments, to carry on with the trial. Allusions to scarcity of institutional resources emerge early in these proceedings.”
The men were charged in late 2004 but there were pre- trial applications and proceedings. Throughout, the lack of court resources hindered progress.
At one point in January 2008, the trial judge complained he was so overworked and his colleagues on the bench so overloaded, they were “quadruple” booking courtrooms.
The delays piled up as the judge and lawyers failed to find an available courtroom.
Scheduling delays accounted for more than half the wasted time — 46 months!
In September 2008, the first judge fell ill and a new judge was appointed — which meant proceedings had to begin over again.
“On Nov. 12, 2008, the Crown did the only sensible thing it could do in face of the countless delays already encountered in the Provincial Court,” Justice Ryan wrote.
“It filed a direct indictment in the Supreme Court of B. C.”
But Justice Leask stayed the charges on April 23, 2009. The prosecutors appealed; they lost. “Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this case,” Appeal Justice Ryan concluded, “is that … it was impossible to reschedule the trial so that it could take place continuously. Instead, the parties staggered through it in bits and pieces .... Even after the trial judge expressed her exasperation in January 2008 with the stunted way in which the trial was proceeding, counsel were only able to obtain six weeks of time starting in November 2008 to carry on in two- week segments until January 2009. … It is hardly a sensible use of time to conduct a trial in a piecemeal fashion.”
Sadly, the situation is only worsening. The latest estimate from the Provincial Court is that more than 2,500 cases are in jeopardy because they have dragged on too long.
And job action by defence lawyers unhappy with the underfunding of legal aid exacerbates the backlog.
Details of the judgment can be viewed at courts. gov. bc. ca/ jdbtxt/ CA/ 12/ 00/ 2012BCCA0007. htm and courts. gov. bc. ca/ jdb- txt/ CA/ 12/ 00/ 2012BCCA0008COR1. htm