A primer on the case that led to landmark Supreme Court ruling on trial delays

By the time the preliminary hearing had finished, it had been 2 1/2 years since Jordan’s initial arrest.

It was around this time that Jordan was convicted of prior drug charges and sentenced to a 15-month conditional sentence.

Jordan’s trial was scheduled to last six weeks starting in September 2012. A new prosecutor took over the file in July 2011 and contacted the defence, saying she believed the trial would only take two to three weeks and asked about earlier dates. Jordan’s lawyer did not respond.

The trial began in September 2012 and Jordan was convicted in February 2013 on five drug-related offences, a little over four years after he was first arrested.

Jordan’s lawyer argued for a stay of proceedings at the beginning of his client’s trial, but the judge dismissed the application. An appeal was similarly rejected.

Both the trial and appellate judges said Jordan’s bail conditions were not excessive because he had been living under similar provisions imposed when he was given the conditional discharge on his other drug convictions.

Jordan appealed to the Supreme Court, which struck down a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in July 2016.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms says someone charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Under the new framework, an unreasonable delay would be presumed should proceedings exceed 18 months in provincial court, or 30 months in Superior Court.

However, these benchmarks are not set in stone.

The Crown could challenge the notion that a delay is unreasonable by demonstrating “exceptional circumstances,” which could include something unforeseen and beyond the Crown’s control, such as a sudden illness, or a case requiring extradition of an accused from another country.

They might also arise in complex cases that involve disclosure of many documents, a large number of witnesses or a significant need for expert evidence.

In addition, a delay may be unreasonable even if it falls below the newly prescribed time limits. However, the defence would have to establish that it took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and show the case lasted “markedly longer” than it should have.

— Follow @gwomand on Twitter

Geordon Omand, The Canadian Press

by Canadian Press

A primer on the case that led to landmark Supreme Court ruling on trial delays

Our Community