| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2152 2023 SLD 2152 2023 SCMR 1524 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided on 28th April, 2023. (On Appeal from the Court ofAppeal for British Columbia) Date of hearing: 4th October,2022.
Present: Wagner C.J. Karakatsanis, C t , Brown**, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O'Bonsawin, JJ
Mark K. Levitz, K.C., Geoff Baragar, K.C., and Mark Wolf for the Appellant. Dagmar Dlab, Simon R. A. Buck and Roger P. Thirkell for the
Respondent Cody Rae Haevischer. Brock Martland, K.C., Daniel J. Song, K.C., Jonathan Desbarats and Elliot Holzman for t
Decided on 28th April, 2023. (On Appeal from the Court ofAppeal for British Columbia) Date of hearing: 4th October,2022.
Present: Wagner C.J. Karakatsanis, C t , Brown**, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O'Bonsawin, JJ
Mark K. Levitz, K.C., Geoff Baragar, K.C., and Mark Wolf for the Appellant. Dagmar Dlab, Simon R. A. Buck and Roger P. Thirkell for the
Respondent Cody Rae Haevischer. Brock Martland, K.C., Daniel J. Song, K.C., Jonathan Desbarats and Elliot Holzman for t
His Majesty The KING---AppellantVersusCODY RAE HAEVISCHER AND MATTHEW JAMES JOHNSTON---RespondentsAndDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, CRIMINAL LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO, INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL DEFENCE ADVOCACY SOCIETY,
Law:
Section:
Criminal law--- ----Practice and procedure---Application filed by accused for stay of proceedings for abuse of process---Summary dismissal of application---'Trial fairness' and 'trial efficiency', concepts of---Scope---Threshold applicable to summary dismissal of application in criminal law context explained. Defendants 'H' and 'J' were tried and found guilty of six counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. Before convictions were entered, H and J applied for stays of proceedings for abuse of process on the basis that systemic police misconduct and the inhumane conditions of confinement they experienced while on remand caused prejudice to their rights to a fair trial and undermined the integrity of the justice system. Before the stay applications proceeded to a voir dire, the prosecution brought a motion for summary dismissal of the applications on the basis that neither application disclosed a sufficient foundation to establish that a voir dire was necessary or would assist the court in determining the merits of the applications. No opportunity to adduce viva voce evidence or to cross-examine key witnesses in either the open or the in camera portion of the hearing was provided to 'H' and 'J'. The trial judge concluded that, even if the applications were taken at their highest, the grounds advanced could not support a stay of proceedings, and, as such, an evidentiary hearing (i.e., a voir dire) on the merits would not assist the court. Trial judge summarily dismissed the applications and ordered the convictions entered. On appeal by H and J, the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and remitted the stay applications to the trial court for a voir dire. It held that the trial judge imposed too high a standard to permit the applications to proceed to an evidentiary hearing and that the applications should have been fully addressed and decided at a voir dire on their merits. An application in a criminal proceeding, including for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, should only be summarily dismissed if the application is manifestly frivolous. This threshold best preserves fair trials, protects the accused's right to full answer and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492