Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Funding for counsel in criminal appeals

In the (in)famous Wills case the defendant has sought to have appeal legal counsel appointed and paid for.  His claim for such funding was denied today by the Court of Appeal in a useful decision (R. v. Wills, 2010 ONCA 128) part of which appears below:

[5]              The appellant makes an application pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code for funding to provide legal assistance for his appeal from his conviction for first degree murder.

[6]              The test on a s. 684 application was set out by this court in R. v. Bernardo (1997), 121 C.C.C. (3d) 123 at para. 21:

First, counsel must be appointed where an accused cannot effectively present his or her appeal without the help of a lawyer.  Second, counsel must be appointed where the court cannot properly decide the appeal without the assistance of counsel.

[7]              On the basis of the record before us and the oral submissions of the appellant, the appellant has not established either of these criteria.

[8]              Although the appeal involves the most serious criminal offence, with particularly serious consequences for the appellant (life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years), we cannot say that the appellant is incapable of effectively presenting his appeal without the assistance of counsel.  The appellant is a well-educated man with long experience as a police officer in the criminal justice system.  He presented an organized argument on this application, including references to the leading authority and test on a s. 684 application.

[9]              Nor do we think that it would be impossible or even difficult for this court to decide the appeal without the assistance of counsel.  Although the appellant has raised 35 possible grounds of appeal, there is nothing unusual or unduly complex about these grounds.  A panel of this court should have little difficulty understanding and resolving the various issues raised by the appellant.  Moreover, it is probable that the issues can easily be reduced to a small number of central ones.

 

1 comment:

Will said...

What would you say if I said that any judicial system that requires the average user to employ an interpreter is a failure?