Digest: R v Hayter, 2018 SKCA 65

• Date: August 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 65

Docket Number: CACR 2965 , CA17175

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2019-08-18

Judges:

• Caldwell
• Whitmore
• Schwann

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Conduct of Trial � Close of Prosecution Case � Right to Make Full Answer and Defence
• Criminal Law � Procedure � Powers of the Court of Appeal � Miscarriage of Justice

Digest: The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge found that he had defrauded the Saskatchewan Workers� Compensation Board of $137,400. Before the trial began, the appellant�s counsel had requested an adjournment because his wife had been hospitalized and he was under stress. The appellant was willing to waive delay if the adjournment was granted. The Crown opposed the request because the charge had been laid three years previously, the preliminary hearing had been rescheduled three times (although twice at the Crown�s request) and it had scheduled ten out-of-town witnesses to testify. The judge determined that the next available trial date either at that judicial centre or elsewhere was almost a year away and denied the request. After the Crown had lead its first witness, the appellant�s counsel advised the court that she was seeking leave to withdraw as the appellant had expressed concerns about her ability to represent him fairly because she was employed by Legal Aid and his alleged offence was against another government agency. His concerns arose at that time because she had raised with him whether he should accept a plea bargain following the Crown�s opening statement and examination of the first witness. The judge informed the appellant that he should apologize to his counsel and request her to continue to represent him. He said that he would not adjourn the trial because of her withdrawal. The appellant stated that he didn�t know enough to defend himself and that he would ask his counsel to continue to represent him. His lawyer advised the court that because the case was complex, she didn�t want to leave her client in the lurch but she felt that she could not represent him. The trial resumed with the appellant representing himself and he was convicted and sentenced to two and a half years in prison. He requested another adjournment before he was sentenced that was also denied. The appellant argued that the trial judge�s denial of his requests for an adjournment, particularly the second one, deprived...