Digest: R v Hahn, 2018 SKCA 73

• Date: August 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 73

Docket Number: CACR 2664 , CA18072

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2019-08-18

Judges:

• Jackson
• Herauf
• Schwann

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Appeal � Conviction
• Criminal Law � Harassment
• Criminal Law - Mistrial
• Criminal Law � Stay of Proceedings
• Criminal Law � Subpoena
• Judge and Courts - Bias

Digest: The appellant was convicted of harassing a judge of the Queen�s Bench Court over a period of two-and-a-half years. He was sentenced to 17 months� incarceration followed by 3 years� probation. At his first jury trial the appellant had counsel, but the trial was declared a mistrial because he held up an inflammatory poster. The appellant did not have legal counsel at his second jury trial, but the trial judge did appoint an amicus curiae for the court. The harassment began after the appellant did not receive the remedies he requested from the judge in family chambers court. The appellant�s grounds of appeal were as follows: 1) the trial judge erred when he quashed the subpoena to have the judge that refused the appellant�s bail testify, which then led to a wrong decision with respect to an application for a stay of proceedings; 2) the trial judge erred by not granting a stay of proceedings; 3) the trial judge erred by ordering a mistrial with respect to the first trial; and 4) the second trial was unfair.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The grounds of appeal were considered by the appeal court as follows: 1) the appellant argued that if the subpoena had been issued he would have been able to show that bias existed at the highest level of the judiciary and therefore a stay of proceedings should have been granted. The judge found as a fact that the appellant wanted the subpoenas to elicit evidence regarding matters of adjudication and administration, which have been found to be reasons worthy of protection by the Supreme Court of Canada; 2) the appellant�s first argument regarding the stay of proceedings appeal was that the trial judge required him to prove �actual� bias. The appeal court concluded that the appellant misread the decision. The appellant�s additional arguments did not consider that the trial judge looked at whether a stay of proceedings would be an appropriate remedy even if it was assumed that a reasonable apprehension of bias could be found. The appeal court agreed with the trial judge that this was not one of the clearest of cases that would justify a stay of proceedings to rectify...