1 / 5

The Effects of R. v. Jordan on Unreasonable Delay and the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time - Affordable Defence

Contact the lawyers at the Ottawa criminal law firm of Edelson Clifford D'Angelo Friedman LLP at 613-909-8153.

Download Presentation

The Effects of R. v. Jordan on Unreasonable Delay and the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time - Affordable Defence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. THE EFFECTS OF R. V. JORDAN ON UNREASONABLE DELAY AND THE RIGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME http://affordabledefence.com/

  2. On behalf of Edelson Clifford D'Angelo Friedman LLP posted in Criminal Defense on July 30, 2016. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “any person charged with an offence has the right… to be tried within a reasonable time”.[1] When determining whether a trial has been unreasonably delayed, the courts have always had to balance society’s interest in pursuing charges to maintain the publics’ confidence in the justice system, with the accused’s interest in having the matter adjudicated as soon as possible. [2] http://affordabledefence.com/

  3. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at this issue in R. v. Askov. [3]  In this case, the Court came up with a four factor framework for determining delay. This test looked at (1) the length of the delay; (2) the explanation for delay, meaning could the delay be attributed to the crown, the defence, or the justice system; (3) whether the accused waived his right to be tried in a reasonable time; and (4) whether the accused was prejudiced by the delay. Askovalso declared that a delay between six to eight months from committal to trial could be deemed unreasonable. http://affordabledefence.com/

  4. Consequently, Askov resulted in over 47,000 criminal charges being stayed or dropped, in Ontario alone, due to delay.[4] Two years later, the Supreme Court revised the law of unreasonable delay in the case of R. v. Morin. In this case, the Court re-worked the four factor test in Askov to also account for inherent time requirements of a case, limits on institutional resources, and other potential causes for delay. Morin clarified that the length of delay starts as soon as a person is charged and runs until the end of the trial. The majority in Morin also set out a new guideline for delay ranging from 14 and 18 months (eight to ten months for institutional delay in the provincial courts and six to eight months from committal to trial). [5] http://affordabledefence.com/

  5. Thank You http://affordabledefence.com/

More Related