R. v. Irving, [2012] O.J. No. 1789:
14 The test for
determining whether a trial justice's interventions have compromised the
appearance of fairness is an objective one. It is whether a reasonably minded
person, who had been present throughout the trial, would consider that the
Appellant had not had a fair trial. The record must be assessed in its totality
and the interventions evaluated cumulatively, not as isolated occurrences, from
the perspective of a reasonable observer present throughout the trial.
Questioning that conveys an impression that a trial justice has placed the
authority of his or her office on the side of the prosecution undermines the
appearance of trial fairness. But proper interventions are appropriate. A trial
justice has an inherent authority to control the court's process and exercising
this authority often requires intervening in proceedings, making comments,
giving directions, and asking questions during a trial (see R. v. Stucky [2009]
O.J. No. 600 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Hamilton [2011] O.J. No. 2306 (Ont. C.A.), and
R. v. Khan [2008] O.J. No. 1561 (Ont. C.J. per Libman, J.)).
15 There are two
problems in this case with the manner in which the trial including sentencing
unfolded, both of which created the appearance of placing the authority of the
justice on the side of the prosecution. First, his unsolicited assistance to
the prosecutor with questioning P.C. Cibulis and instructing both the
Prosecutor and the Officer on the correct way to use the rules of evidence to
ensure the admissibility of the evidence. Second, the collaborative way in
which the Prosecutor and the Justice reached a decision on the sentence seemed
like a conversation, where they were deciding together on an equal footing what
the sentence would be. The final words of the Justice looked as if he was
simply summarizing what the two of them had decided together. The complete
absence of the Appellant or a licensed representative in this ex parte trial
aggravated these appearances of impropriety.
No comments:
Post a Comment