Reasonable Time Before Trial: Applying R. v Jordan to Youth Crimes
On November 15, 2019 in the case R. v K.J.M., the Supreme Court of Canada laid out the applicability of R. v Jordan, a case determining ceilings for the reasonable length of time before a trial, to cases involving youth. The Supreme Court determined in this case that the ceilings identified in Jordan did apply to youth cases and that a lowering of the maximum range of eighteen to thirty months for cases concerning youth was unnecessary.
When Enough is Enough?
In R v Dumas, 2020 MBCA 28, a 48-year-old attempted to appeal indeterminate sentences imposed onto him for 2 separate sexual assaults. One being the sexual assault of a 30-year-old man, and the other being the sexual assault with a weapon on a 15-year-old girl. As all citizens do, the accused indeed has a right to a fair trial, and in this case, he argues that a 20-year determinate sentence followed by a 10-year supervision order should have been ordered.
R v Devloo - A Case Brief
Where the Crown has employed the use of a civilian agent to procure evidence from a criminal enterprise that agent’s credibility becomes integral to the credibility of any evidence they procure. This is especially true when the agent has some aspect of their person, such as a criminal history, which might indicate some level of untrustworthiness. In this case the civilian agent is the sole source of the evidence produced against the appellant, and the agent’s trustworthiness.
The Effects of Evidence and Procedure Upon a Fair Trial
Although unrelated to the original intention in investigating the case, R v Dowd brings up some interesting concepts in relation to the jurisprudence surrounding evidence in trials. One of these includes the concept of trial by ambush. For some context, the case of R v Dowd involves a former police officer accused of sexual assault (indecent touching) on a nine-year old girl.
Comparing Plato’s Conception of Harmony to a Supreme Court Decision
In this Blawg, I will attempt to do a little philosophizing by comparing Plato’s conception of justice to a Supreme Court ruling in R v Myers. The object of this exposition is to compare Plato’s conception of justice, that is, harmony, to a case from the Supreme Court that tries to bring agreement between s.5252 of the Criminal Code of Canada and s.11(e)[3] of the Charter.
