R. v. Sanghera (B.) et al., 2015 SCC 13

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Côté, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 19, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 SCC 13;(2015), 366 B.C.A.C. 82 (SCC);320 CCC (3d) 327;[2015] 1 SCR 691

R. v. Sanghera (B.) (2015), 366 B.C.A.C. 82 (SCC);

    629 W.A.C. 82

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.068

Savdip Sanghera (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(36017; 2015 SCC 13)

Indexed As: R. v. Sanghera (B.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Côté, JJ.

March 19, 2015.

Summary:

The accused spent three years in custody between his arrest and conviction on a number of weapons offences. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of six years, one month and one day, followed by 18 months' probation, less double credit for three years' pre-trial custody. The accused appealed on the ground that the trial judge erred in not finding that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed and granting a stay of proceedings. Particularly, the accused argued that the trial judge erred in not attributing two periods of delay to the Crown (delay from Crown exercising its prosecutorial discretion after trial commenced in Provincial Court to prefer a direct indictment and the accused's disclosure application on first day of trial).

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Bennett, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2014), 357 B.C.A.C. 175; 611 W.A.C. 175, dismissed the appeal. The most significant delay was the need for continuation dates for the trial. The court stated that "Even accounting for the fact that this delay was compounded to some extent by the unavailability of judicial resources and the decision of the Crown to prefer the direct indictment, I do not consider this to absolve [the accused] of the major responsibility for the delay in this case. I therefore find the delay in this case was not unreasonable, and would dismiss the appeal.". Bennett, J.A., would have allowed the appeal and granted a stay of proceedings on the ground that the extra five month delay from the Crown exercising its prosecutorial discretion to prefer a direct indictment should have been attributed to the Crown, therefore making a borderline reasonable delay and unreasonable delay. The accused appealed as of right.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Karakatsanis and Côté, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The accused appealed his convictions on the ground that the trial judge erred in not finding that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed and granting a stay of proceedings - Particularly, the accused argued that the trial judge erred in not attributing two periods of delay to the Crown (delay from Crown exercising its prosecutorial discretion after trial commenced in Provincial Court to prefer a direct indictment and the accused's disclosure application on first day of trial) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Bennett, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal - The most significant delay was the need for continuation dates for the trial - The court stated that "Even accounting for the fact that this delay was compounded to some extent by the unavailability of judicial resources and the decision of the Crown to prefer the direct indictment, I do not consider this to absolve [the accused] of the major responsibility for the delay in this case. I therefore find the delay in this case was not unreasonable, and would dismiss the appeal." - Bennett, J.A., would have allowed the appeal and granted a stay of proceedings on the ground that the extra five month delay from the Crown exercising its prosecutorial discretion to prefer a direct indictment should have been attributed to the Crown, therefore making a borderline reasonable delay and unreasonable delay - The accused appealed as of right - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - The Court of Appeal did not err in its conclusion.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Counsel:

[not disclosed]

Solicitors of Record:

[not disclosed]

This appeal was heard on March 19, 2015, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Côté, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 19, 2015, McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment orally in both official languages for the Court.