Decision to stay charges highlights lack of justice system resources

Article content

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

Article content

That’s the sound of the clock running on Alberta Crown prosecutors following a decision last week by a Court of King’s Bench judge who stayed charges against three alleged drug dealers even though their case would have been tried within guidelines established by the Supreme Court.

Justice Kent Teskey said even though the trio’s case was to conclude in less than the presumptive ceiling of 30 months set by the nation’s top court, the accused were victims of unreasonable delay.

Teskey found that even though their Fort McMurray trial was scheduled to end July 18, a full week before the presumptive deadline, their Charter right to be tried in a timely fashion was breached.

In the seminal Jordan case, the Supreme Court said any delays of 30 months or more in getting an accused person to trial in the superior court would amount to unreasonable delay, but said exceptional circumstances could extend that period and any time attributable to the defence would be deducted from the timeline.

Article content

Article content

“The difficulty in this case is that, to the extent that this case falls under the presumptive ceiling, it does so by inches rather than miles,” Teskey said in his written ruling.

Teskey said because of the Supreme Court guidelines cases have tended to take longer, rather than less time, to get resolved.

“I reflect that most criminal cases in the Superior Court of Alberta now generally fall toward the limits of the Jordan ceiling,” he said.

“In an effort to keep cases under 30 months, the average time to trial has risen toward the ceiling. The Supreme Court was explicit that 30 months was not to be ‘an aspirational target.’”

Teskey noted the top judges said the guidelines were not to be taken as the norm.

“There is little reason to be satisfied with a presumptive ceiling on trial delay set at 18 months for cases going to trial in the provincial court, and 30 months for cases going to trial in the superior court,” he quoted from the Jordan decision.

Article content

“This is a long time to wait for justice. But the ceiling reflects the realities we currently face. We may have to revisit these numbers and the considerations that inform them in the future.”

But Teskey rightly noted that while the unreasonable delay in the case of the three accused fell on the prosecution in the case, it wasn’t government lawyers to blame.

“Fundamentally, the record of this case demonstrates a failure of the government to resource the justice system and the inability of the courts to mitigate this resource failure,” he said.

And right there is the nub of the problem.

Alberta prosecutors, like their opponents on the other side of the courtroom, work tirelessly to ensure justice is done as practicably as possible.

Article content

But without the proper resources that task ranges from daunting to near impossible.

And it’s not just a question of adding more Crown lawyers to the mix to resolve the issue.

Both the Alberta Court of Justice and Court of King’s Bench are routinely short the number of judges required for the various jurisdictions across the province.

But the lack of resources doesn’t end there, as there are constantly staffing shortages to find clerks and sheriffs to keep courtrooms running.

Just one example of this issue is the appointment in April of Justice Josh Hawkes to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Hawkes, who had been sitting on the Court of Justice in Calgary, was named to the province’s top court to replace a judge who retired nearly a year earlier.

More telling is the fact his spot on the Court of Justice bench hasn’t been filled.

It’s not like there’s a dearth of lawyers seeking judicial appointments. All it takes is governments ponying up the money.

KMartin@postmedia.com

Article content