R. v. Verma (P.K.), (2011) 305 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA)
| Judge | Newbury, Mackenzie and Hinkson, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | January 11, 2011 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2011), 305 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA);2011 BCCA 52 |
R. v. Verma (P.K.) (2011), 305 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA);
515 W.A.C. 42
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2011] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.029
Regina (respondent) v. Pradeep Kumar Verma (appellant)
(CA035879; 2011 BCCA 52)
Indexed As: R. v. Verma (P.K.)
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Newbury, Mackenzie and Hinkson, JJ.A.
February 7, 2011.
Summary:
The accused pleaded guilty to uttering threats and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The accused appealed, with leave. The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent the accused, as required by s. 672.24(1) of the Criminal Code, when he ordered an assessment of his fitness to stand trial under s. 672.12. Notwithstanding, the Crown submitted that the curative provision of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) should be applied and the convictions confirmed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty pleas and ordered a new trial.
Criminal Law - Topic 5045
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - The Crown conceded on appeal against conviction that the trial judge had erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent the accused, as required by s. 672.24(1) of the Criminal Code, when he ordered an assessment of his fitness to stand trial under s. 672.12 - Notwithstanding, the Crown submitted that the curative provision of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) should be applied and the convictions, entered after pleas of guilty, confirmed - The Crown argued that the accused was not prejudiced by the breach because the record demonstrated that he was fit to stand trial, or plead guilty - The accused replied that it was speculative to conclude that the accused was not prejudiced by counsel's absence where the circumstances of the offences had "bizarre" elements and past psychiatric diagnoses were complex and varied - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty pleas and ordered a new trial - The court could not conclude that the failure to order the accused's representation by counsel before the court at the assessment stage of these proceedings and the failure to address the fitness issue with counsel present after an assessment was ordered were inevitably harmless and resulted in no prejudice to the accused - See paragraphs 1 to 26.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Waranuk (T.A.) (2010), 291 B.C.A.C. 47; 492 W.A.C. 47; 2010 YKCA 5, folld. [para. 3].
R. v. Van (D.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716; 388 N.R. 200; 251 O.A.C. 295; 2009 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 24].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 672.24 [para. 2].
Counsel:
P. Verma, appellant, appeared in person;
K. Madsen, for the respondent;
C. Herb-Kelly, for the Public Guardian and Trustee;
B. Martland, amicus curiae.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on January 11, 2011, by Newbury, Mackenzie and Hinkson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Vancouver, B.C., on February 7, 2011, by Mackenzie, J.A.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Verma (P.K.), 2014 BCCA 157
...or as amicus curiae . He argued that a division of this Court had determined he is entitled to representation by counsel: R. v. Verma , 2011 BCCA 52. That case is not relevant to this application as it involved separate charges and Mr. Verma's fitness for trial. Mr. Verma was entitled to co......
-
R. v. Iverson (R.J.), [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 627
...may not reject the appointment of counsel and counsel is authorized to act even where the accused refuses to co-operate: R. v. Verma , 2011 BCCA 52 at para. 22. [25] Mr. Iverson refused to speak to Mr. King. However, Mr. King on Mr. Iverson's behalf submitted that the court should order a f......
-
R. v. Verma, 2019 BCCA 314
...“PGT”). In 2001, the PGT was appointed committee of Mr. Verma’s financial affairs: see R. v. Verma, 2011 BCCA 52 at para. 6, 305 B.C.A.C. [3] On the day he was convicted, Mr. Ve......
-
R. v. Verma, 2017 BCCA 273
...to the Court. Mr. Verma has been before this Court in six separate appeal files since 2008, and a number before then. In R. v. Verma, 2011 BCCA 52, Mr. Verma was before this Court in related matters. background of the case was set out at paras. 6-11: [6] The B.C. Public Guardian and Trustee......
-
R. v. Verma (P.K.), 2014 BCCA 157
...or as amicus curiae . He argued that a division of this Court had determined he is entitled to representation by counsel: R. v. Verma , 2011 BCCA 52. That case is not relevant to this application as it involved separate charges and Mr. Verma's fitness for trial. Mr. Verma was entitled to co......
-
R. v. Iverson (R.J.), [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 627
...may not reject the appointment of counsel and counsel is authorized to act even where the accused refuses to co-operate: R. v. Verma , 2011 BCCA 52 at para. 22. [25] Mr. Iverson refused to speak to Mr. King. However, Mr. King on Mr. Iverson's behalf submitted that the court should order a f......
-
R. v. Verma, 2019 BCCA 314
...“PGT”). In 2001, the PGT was appointed committee of Mr. Verma’s financial affairs: see R. v. Verma, 2011 BCCA 52 at para. 6, 305 B.C.A.C. [3] On the day he was convicted, Mr. Ve......
-
R. v. Verma, 2017 BCCA 273
...to the Court. Mr. Verma has been before this Court in six separate appeal files since 2008, and a number before then. In R. v. Verma, 2011 BCCA 52, Mr. Verma was before this Court in related matters. background of the case was set out at paras. 6-11: [6] The B.C. Public Guardian and Trustee......