Digest: R v Noltcho, 2018 SKPC 26

DateApril 13, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 26

Docket Number: PC17117 , 90117206 and 90117003

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2018-04-13

Judges:

  • Martinez

Subjects:

  • Constitutional Law � Charter of Rights, Section 11(b)

Digest: The accused made application for a stay of proceedings on two sets of charges against him on the grounds that he had been deprived of his right to be tried within a reasonable time contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter. The first set of charges set out in one Information dated June 26, 2016 included assault, assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement. As at the time of the application, the trial date was set for July 2018. Initially, a Legal Aid lawyer had been appointed to represent the accused who appeared in court with him when he pled not guilty in mid-August 2016 and the trial was scheduled for January 2017. Just before the trial, the lawyer advised that he could not represent the accused because of a conflict of interest as Legal Aid had represented the complainant many times. The Crown and the accused wanted to proceed, but the trial judge adjourned the matter to February so that the local Legal Aid Office could appoint outside counsel to represent the accused. In February, the case was adjourned to March because no new counsel had been appointed. Finally, in April, the accused retained his present counsel who asked for an adjournment to May 2017 to prepare and the trial was scheduled for December 2017. At that time, the complainant did not appear and the Crown applied for an adjournment which was opposed by defence counsel, who put on record that delay was becoming an issue. The case was adjourned and the trial set for June 2018. The defence filed an affidavit sworn by the accused�s original Legal Aid lawyer that alleged that the local Legal Aid Office�s Director had failed to act when he requested that conflict counsel be appointed. The defence argued that this delay was foreseeable by the Crown because it was widely-known that the office was having problems. The Crown submitted that failure of the Legal Aid Director to obtain conflict counsel for the accused was an exceptional circumstance because it was an unforeseen discrete event. The second Information was dated June 27, 2016 and involved charges of impaired driving, refusal to undergo a drug impairment evaluation and breach of an undertaking. As with the first set of charges, the Legal Aid lawyer withdrew in January 2017, no conflict counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT