Untitled

KC
by Katrina Caminiti3 views·Updated Feb 24, 2022
Re-use contentCreate your own

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated

  1. Hi my name is Katrina community and I will be presenting the case of R. V.
  2. Morin of 1992. The right to be tried within a reasonable time.
  3. The facts of the case are as follows.
  4. Darlene Morin referred to as the accused was charged
  5. with impaired driving in Ontario on January 9,
  6. 1988
  7. MS Morton was released from custody that same day
  8. on a promise to appear on February 23,
  9. Miss Morin appeared in Provincial Court
  10. where her council explicitly requested the earliest
  11. possible child date.
  12. Child date was set for March 28 of 1989.
  13. The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while
  14. impaired and her blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit
  15. contrary to section 2 37 A. And B. Now Section 2 53 A. And B.
  16. Of the Criminal Code of Canada
  17. on her trial date.
  18. Miss morin brought a stay of proceedings motion pursuant to section
  19. 24 subsection one of the Canadian charter of Rights and freedoms,
  20. arguing that the 14.5 month delay in bringing her case to trial
  21. infringed on her right to be tried within a reasonable time.
  22. Under section 11 B. Of the charter.
  23. The major issue to be determined in this appeal is whether
  24. the accused right to a trial within a reasonable time,
  25. as guaranteed by section 11 B.
  26. Of the Charter has been infringed by the delay experienced in this case.
  27. The court court must consider the limits
  28. of institutional resources as well as considered whether
  29. the actions of either the accused or the crown have led to the delay,
  30. including instances of prejudice,
  31. Determination on whether the section 11B right has
  32. been violated is one made by the judiciary after
  33. balancing the interests which the section is designed to
  34. protect against factors which inevitably lead to delays.
  35. The concept of balancing in this legal context requires an
  36. examination of the length of delay and its evaluation.
  37. In light of the other factors
  38. the pieces of legislation referenced applying to the
  39. issues of the case are as follows.
  40. The Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms,
  41. Section 11 B denotes that any person charged with an
  42. offense has the right to be tried within a reasonable time
  43. and under Section 24 subsection one,
  44. which states that anyone whose rights or freedoms as guaranteed by
  45. this charter have been infringed or denied may apply to a
  46. court of contempt jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
  47. considers appropriate and in just in just in the circumstances,
  48. the Canadian criminal code Section 2 53 A and B.
  49. Were also referenced discussing the person's ability to operate
  50. a motor vehicle while impaired and consuming alcohol in such
  51. a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds
  52. 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.
  53. The child trial judge also relied heavenly on the RV Hurlburt Case of 1988,
  54. In which an 18 month delay,
  55. prior to trial was found reasonable under the circumstances.
  56. A guideline with respect to institutional delay after committal for trial,
  57. in the range of 6 to 8 months was suggested in the case of r.
  58. V as cough. In 1990.
  59. Courts made it clear that this range is only a
  60. guideline for trial courts and is not a fixed number.
  61. There must be a consideration of the unique circumstances of each case
  62. in the jurisdiction in which this case arose.
  63. A period of period in the order of 10 months would not
  64. be unreasonable for systemic delay given the rapidly changing local conditions.
  65. There was no expression of concern by the accused
  66. when the child date was set 14.5 months later
  67. and often virtually irrefutable presumption of prejudice to the accused
  68. results in the in this case of extensive delays.
  69. However,
  70. there is no evidence of prejudicial attitudes towards
  71. or from the accused Throughout this case,
  72. the judges decided that the delay in this case was not unreasonable.
  73. The court of appeal acknowledged that the sole source of delay
  74. in this case was attributable to limits on institutional resources.
  75. However, the conviction entered at trial was to be restored.
  76. MS Moran was subsequently found guilty of the odor over 80 charged under section
  77. 2 53 B and a stay was entered on the impaired driving charge.
  78. As a result, she was fined $700 and her driver's license was suspended for 15 months.
  79. The legal significance of the RV more in case of 1992 holds precedence in the R. V.
  80. Jordan decision in 2016 to be tried within a reasonable time,
  81. pursuant to section 11 B of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
  82. The Jordan decision was reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016,
  83. establishing the following timelines when trial must
  84. be heard once charges are laid.
  85. If a case succeeds 18 months in the provincial
  86. court or 30 months in Superior Superior Court,
  87. this is too long and the accused is entitled to have their charges stayed.
  88. The sec also noted that any delay by the
  89. defense does not count towards the given time period,
  90. while the delay by the state or the crown attorney does in fact count.