The right of an imprisoned accused to conduct online research.

• Author: Burton, Sarah

Case Commented On: R v Biever, 2015 ABQB 301

The link between access to information and access to justice is not often discussed, but it is implicit in our legal process. Document production, questioning, and Crown disclosure are all premised on the notion that one needs access to relevant information in order to present one's case. This idea should also extend to legal research. Without access to precedents, case law and procedural texts, the ability to adequately argue a case is significantly impaired.

R v Biever, 2015 ABQB 301, tackles the issue of access to legal information in a unique context--the right of an imprisoned accused to conduct online legal research. While prisons provide access to criminal law texts, the court in Biever considered whether those resources were adequate for an inmate to meet and defend the case against him. In ruling that the accused was entitled to more materials, the court raised questions about how prisons should be providing access to legal information. Biever also raises interesting questions about how we deal with self-represented parties who simply do not want a lawyer.

Facts

The accused, Mr. Biever, was charged with a number of offences related to bank robbery. He was denied bail and had been in custody since March 2013. After moving on-and-off through ten publicly and privately retained lawyers, Mr. Biever elected to represent himself.

Self-representation is complicated at the best of times, but it is particularly problematic for prison inmates. The Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC)--the facility housing Mr. Biever--does not provide Internet access to prisoners. There is no formal library, but there is a collection of criminal law texts that can be ordered through an internal request system. There is also no access to photocopying, scanning, word processing, or commissioning services.

To facilitate his research efforts, Mr. Biever purchased an annotated Criminal Code and relied on family and friends to bring him case law. He experienced difficulty and delay getting that case law into the ERC. In light of these difficulties, Mr. Biever launched a pre-trial application arguing that these restrictions (and particularly, the ban on Internet research) violated his section 7 Charter right to make a full answer and defence to the case against him. This argument was premised on three points (as presented by an amicus (*)a latin phrase meaning "friend of the court" ):

1. the election to self-represent was his right;

2. his liberty was infringed by the denial of bail; and

3. the conditions of his detention prohibited him from accessing information...