The Canadian Supreme Court’s Justice Suhail Akhtar has ordered a new trial in case where provincial court’s judge acquitted the accused before the calling of defense’s evidence.
Last year the Supreme Court suggested that the judges should reduce the lengthy trails to avoid the unnecessary delay for a speedy justice, but apparently the suggestion was ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity Justice Richard Blouin of a provincial court in Toronto acquitted the accused before the defense was able to call their evidence.
The justice quoted a Supreme Court’s ruling on ‘R. v Cody’ in Oct, 2017 in his statement and said, ‘There is a provision in there talking about preventing delay.’
‘And I just wanted to speak to that because I’m not going to ask the defence to call any evidence because in my view the Crown is not anywhere near proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt …’
The prosecution appealed the ruling in Supreme Court, which was heard by Justice Suhail Akhtar. Justice Akhtar passed an order for a new trail in his decision which was released this month.
He said, ‘Whatever the ramifications of Cody and its comments encouraging judges to ‘control and manage’ a trial, the Supreme Court of Canada did not sanction the elimination of one of the fundamental tenets of a criminal trial: the right of a party to make submissions on the guilt or innocence of an accused person.’
He called Blouin’s judgement ‘against the principle of natural justice’ and also told that the appeal is qualified on this ground alone.
The case in which the accused was acquitted without the admission of evidence against him was of a guy named Brian Sibbert, who failed to comply with his probation against his female neighbor. Subbert had pleaded guilty to assaulting the woman previously. He is now facing a second trail.
What’s even more fascinating is that the accused himself called the provincial judge’s decision a mistake.
‘The judge erred, therefore the Crown appeal should stand and I agree with that ruling,’ according to Sibbert.
‘It wasn’t a murder case. It’s a monumental waste of time and money for the court, and a waste of my time and my money.’
Case against Sibbert was dismissed because the woman was the prosecution’s sole witness and the judge had dismissed the case over the accused’s concerns over the witness’ reliability.