Case ties courts up in knots as the costs keep rising
Some criminal cases are prime examples of how offenders, whether from stupidity or for mischief, can treat the legal system like a veritable playpen and taxpayers like bill-paying dupes.
Take 33-year-old Torbin Alec who pleaded guilty to fatally stabbing his childhood friend Jesse Seymour at a drunken house party in Kamloops on July 15, 2012.
The file required a special prosecutor because the victim was the estranged son-in-law of B.C. Lt.- Gov. Stephen Point, but it was a clear-cut case with key eye witnesses and incriminating forensic evidence.
Still, the public tab only went up from there for legal aid pretrial proceedings, the trial, several sentencing hearing adjournments, a sentencing hearing, a spurious background report and now an appeal.
There were no major legal issues at play.
A member of the Tl’azt’en First Nation, Alec is a poster boy for how difficult it is to apply cost-controls in the criminal legal system where dolts like him cause an enormous squandering of resources for no good reason.
Originally charged with second-degree murder, after three days of evidence at a trial in Nov. 2013, Alec copped to the lesser charge of manslaughter.
His about-face came after the court heard he stabbed his 29-year-old pal six times, twice in the heart, in an alcohol-and-drug-fuelled brawl over a woman.
The writing was on the wall and going down for second-degree would have meant life imprisonment so Alec was motivated to change his plea.
Afterwards, however, Alec fired his lawyer not because of any competence issues but because he was paranoid about the influence of Seymour’s family.
For the next five months, he argued at hearings about whether any other lawyer in the Kamloops area could be trusted and about who should prepare his background report for similar reasons.
Representing himself at the delayed sentencing hearing in April 2014, Alec asserted he never intended to plead guilty and wanted a new trial.
But he couldn’t represent himself on a murder charge, so he needed a new lawyer, Alec told the judge
After being provided with counsel, however, Alec seemingly changed his mind again and said they “might as well” proceed. He was given six years less time served, meaning he would be eligible for mandatory release very quickly.
You’d think he would have thanked his lucky stars.
Instead, he appealed claiming a miscarriage of justice and seeking to present fresh evidence — the finally produced background report that suggested his guilty plea was the product of “aboriginal fatalism” attributed to “the lingering effects of colonialism.”
Alec came from a family background of addiction, mental illness, violence, psychological abuse and instability.
The report’s author said that when such vulnerable aboriginal offenders interact with the courts, “they tend to bring a mindset that manifests itself in a tendency to want to expedite proceedings as a consequence of a perceived powerlessness to influence the outcome.”
Writing for a unanimous division of the B.C. Court of Appeal, Justice Gregory Fitch swept that theory aside and said there was nothing to suggest Alec’s plea “was anything other than informed, voluntary and unequivocal.”
Supported by Justices Nicole Garson and Ed Frankel, he gave short shrift to the suggestion Alec suffered from fatalism.
“First, the appellant has, by his conduct in this proceeding, demonstrated an oppositional and defiant stance inconsistent with the mindset of one who approaches interactions with the justice system with a passive and fatalistic bearing,” Justice Fitch wrote.
“He discharged his trial counsel, evidently displeased with his performance.
“He refused to be assisted by trial counsel or by any other local counsel on sentencing.
“He initially refused to meet with the Gladue report writer assigned to his case, believing her to be a puppet of the victim’s family.”
Justice Fitch explained in his ruling Tuesday that Alec derived “a substantial benefit from the manner in which this case was resolved; specifically, an acquittal on a charge of second degree murder and the benefit of a joint submission on sentencing.
“The appellant expressed no concern about his plea … (when he) appeared before the trial judge (or another judge of the Supreme Court) on no fewer than six occasions ( before sentencing) … In fact, after recounting his version of events, the appellant reiterated his understanding that it ‘isn’t grounds for self-defence.’”
As Alec said at sentencing: “I didn’t mean to take his life ... I know exactly what I was thinking when I was doing what I was doing. I made the conscious decision to stab him.”
“You impaled him,” someone in the court yelled. “Yeah.” Alec replied. ‘Jesus!” a voice exclaimed. “I have to own that,” Alec said. Owned it? He’s spent four years costing us money, dodging responsibility.