ARCTIC OBITER

NWT DECISION DIGEST CONT’D
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – TRIAL
WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
R v Caesar
2013 NWTSC 65 (Sept 10, 2013)
Presiding: Justice Shaner
For the Crown: A. Godfrey
For the Defendant: M. Martin
The defendant sought a stay of
proceedings on the basis that his
right to be tried within a
reasonable time had been violated.
39 months elapsed since the
information was sworn. Neither
the inherent time requirements nor
the actions of the Crown
contributed significantly to the
delay. The actions of the
defendant and the institutional
delay account for the lion’s share
of time. The defendant’s actions
were the cause of 13.5 months.
Application dismissed – Although
institutional delay (22 months)
accounts for most of the delay in
this case, it is not unreasonable in
the circumstances. There is a
practice of trying cases in the NWT
where the offence is alleged to
have occurred. This serves a
number of very good purposes:
avoids witness travel; allows
people to see the justice system at
work in their communities;
provides opportunities for a wide
array of individuals to sit as jurors
and participate directly in the
justice system; allows an accused a
jury panel that is more likely to be
representative of that person’s
community and culture.
This
p r a c t i c e i s n o t w i t h o u t
consequences, however.
Among
these is the possibility of a longer
wait for a trial than would be
experienced elsewhere or a longer
wait than one would experience
upon electing to be tried by judge
alone.
The realities of smaller
communities mean a possibility of
mistrial, as happened here, causing
delay. Given all of the
circumstances under which this
court operates, the institutional
delay in this case is not, in and of
itself, unreasonable.
The options
are limited and the delay is
explained. There is no basis for a
finding the defendant suffered any
prejudice as a result of the time it
has taken to get this matter to trial.
TERRITORIAL
COURT
CRIMINAL LAW –
REASONABLE DOUBT
R v Football
2013 NWTTC 17 (Aug 20, 2013)
Presiding: Chief Judge R.D. Gorin
For the Crown: J. Porter
For the Defendant: P. Fulglsang
The defendant was alleged to have
assaulted the complainant causing
a cut on her face, and having
breached his recognizance by
failing to keep the peace and be of
good behaviour and by having
contact with the complainant. The
complainant testified she went to
the defendant’s residence against
his wishes. There she fought with
another woman. The defendant
intervened and threw the
complainant out of the residence.
The complainant then, while
intoxicated and jealous, made a
false statement to the police
accusing the defendant of assault.
The complainant’s contrary
videotaped statement given under
oath to police was admitted into
evidence for the truth of its
contents. The Crown called the
woman who, according to the
complainant’s testimony, was
responsible for the injuries. That
woman gave evidence inconsistent
with the complainant’s trial
testimony.
Defendant acquitted – The
contradictions between the
complainant’s testimony and her
statement are such that it is clear
she lied under oath either in her
statement to the police or in her
testimony in court. Her credibility
was thoroughly impeached.
Anything she says cannot be relied
24 ■ FALL 2013 ARCTIC OBITER