Supreme Court throws out sexual assault case over trial delays

This decision, blogged below as to the legal principles, is a bit surprising.

The Supreme Court, and the Courts of Appeal, had been moving away from dismissal for delay except where the prejudice was clear, obvious and proven. This decision will give new life to many claims to have cases stayed for excessive delay.

As a side point I note a critical factor in the Court's decision was that letters to the Crown went unanswered. I suspect the Court may not be aware that, unless a Crown is assigned (and there are not resources to do that in most cases), there is often no one there to answer letters. Perhaps there should be, and maybe that is a good reason to hold against the Crown, but the failure to reply was not high-handed -- it merely reflects a lack of staff.

Supreme Court throws out rape case over trial delays


Charges against a northern Ontario man accused of raping and threatening to kill his girlfriend four years ago were dismissed Thursday after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the accused didn't get a speedy trial.

In a unanimous 7-0 judgment, the high court concluded that the accused's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated by a 30-month delay between the time Marcel Godin of Sudbury, Ont. was charged in May 2005 and his trial date.

The judgment overturns a 2008 ruling in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The high court has previously established a reasonable timeline of 12 to 18 months between charges being laid and a trial commencing. The justices ruled this case far exceeded that, and blamed the delay on the Crown.

"This is a straightforward case and needed only modest amounts of court time, yet the delays far exceeded the guidelines," wrote Justice Thomas Cromwell.

"Virtually all of this delay was attributable to the Crown, and no explanation was offered for it."

In May, 2005, Godin was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend. In mid-September, a trial date was set for mid-February, 2006.

"That delay would not have been unreasonable had the case proceeded as scheduled," Justice Cromwell said. "Unfortunately, it did not."

The delays began just before the original trial date. The Crown received a forensic report four days before the trial was to begin, indicating that a DNA sample taken from the complainant did not match the sperm of the accused.

The report led to a series of delays that culminated in a trial date set for November 2007.

Godin successfully challenged the time lapse as a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, but the ruling was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court ruling restores the original decision.