The decision to stay charges highlights a shabby justice system

Article Content

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.

Article Content

That’s the sound of the clock ticking in the Alberta Crown Prosecutor’s Office after a Superior Court judge ruled last week to stay the prosecution of three people suspected of drug trafficking, even though their cases will be heard under guidelines set by the Supreme Court.

Judge Kent Teskey said that although the trio’s cases would be concluded within the presumed 30-month deadline set by the country’s highest court, the defendants were victims of unjustifiable delays.

Teskey found that although their trial in Fort McMurray was scheduled to end on July 18, a full week ahead of the scheduled deadline, their Charter right to a timely trial was violated.

In the seminal Jordan case, the Supreme Court said any delay of 30 months or more in sending a defendant to the High Court for trial would amount to unreasonable delay, but said special circumstances could extend that period and any time attributable to the defence would be deducted from the timetable.

Article Content

Article Content

“The difficulty in this case is that if it meets the presumptive cap, it is calculated only in inches, not miles,” Teskey said in his written ruling.

Teskey said cases tend to take longer, not shorter, to resolve because of Supreme Court guidelines.

“I think the majority of criminal cases in the Alberta Superior Court right now generally fall into the Jordan cap category,” he said.

“Average trial times are approaching the upper limit in an effort to keep cases under 30 months. The Supreme Court made it clear that 30 months is not the ‘ideal target.’

Teskey noted that the top judge said the guidelines should not be considered the norm.

He cited the Jordan decision: “There is no justification for the maximum adjournment of a trial at 18 months for provincial court cases and 30 months for Superior Court cases.”

Article Content

“It’s been too long to wait for justice. But the caps reflect the reality we face right now. We may have to revisit these numbers and the considerations behind them in the future.”

But Teskey correctly points out that while the unreasonable delays in the three defendants’ cases were the responsibility of the prosecution, they were not the fault of government lawyers.

“Fundamentally, the record in this case demonstrates the government’s failure to resource the justice system and the court’s inability to mitigate the consequences of that under-resourcing,” he said.

This is the crux of the problem.

Like their counterparts on the other side of the courtroom, Alberta prosecutors work tirelessly to ensure justice is achieved wherever possible.

Article Content

But without the proper resources, this task becomes daunting or even impossible.

It’s not just a matter of adding more prosecutors to fix the problem.

The Alberta Provincial Court and the Superior Court often fall short of the number of judges needed in every jurisdiction across the province.

But the problem of resource shortage does not end there, with courts often lacking clerks and sheriffs to keep the courts running.

An example of this problem is the appointment of Judge Josh Hawkes to the Alberta Court of Appeal this April.

Hawkes, a former Calgary court judge, was appointed to the province’s highest court, replacing a judge who retired nearly a year ago.

Even more telling is that his seat on the court bench remains unfilled.

There is no shortage of lawyers seeking judicial appointments. All that is needed is government money.

KMartin@postmedia.com

Article Content