Summary Trial Delay Argument

Ask Your Question For Free

Summary

In Nova Scotia, the Jordan principle allows a judge to stay proceedings in a summary trial if delays exceed 18 months and arent caused by the defense. A self-represented defendant should present evidence and arguments showing the delay infringes their right to a speedy trial. If unable to afford transcripts, defendants can apply for a fee waiver. Nova Scotia Legal Aid can assist those who cant afford a lawyer. For inconsistencies in an accusers statements, consult a legal professional to evaluate the evidence and provide tailored advice.

Full Conversation

I have a question regarding Canadian criminal law regarding a summary trial
Hello ****! I'd be happy to provide some general information about summary trials in Canadian criminal law. Can you please specify your question or concern regarding the summary trial?
I am wondering if in a summary trial that is scheduled to pass the 18 month ceiling and being tried by a self represented defendant. Does the judge in the matter have the responsibility to stay the proceedings due to the Jordan principle
In Canada, according to the Jordan principle:
- If a case at the provincial court exceeds 18 months from the charge to the end of a trial, it's presumed to be unreasonable.
- The judge can stay proceedings if delays are not caused by the defense.
This is a general principle and exceptions may apply.
Should the kids get stay the charges
To clarify, are you asking if the charges against a minor should be stayed in a summary trial that exceeds 18 months? Also, could you specify the province this case is in as laws may vary?
Not a minor, a 44 year old with no prior record. This is in Nova Scotia
In Nova Scotia, the Jordan principle applies universally, regardless of age or prior record. If the delay (over 18 months in a provincial court) is not caused by the defense, the trial may be stayed. However, actual outcomes depend on specific case circumstances.
Can you provide an anrgument for the charge being stayed as a responsibility of the judge
In a summary trial exceeding 18 months in Nova Scotia, the judge can stay the proceedings under the Jordan principle. Arguments for staying the charge could include:
- The delay was not caused by the defendant.
- The delay is not justified by extraordinary circumstances.
- The defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial is infringed.
Please consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your case.
Would the self rep need to do anything or simply appeal to the judge
A self-represented defendant should:
- Present arguments showing the delay was not their fault.
- Highlight that the delay infringes on their right to a speedy trial.
- Request the judge to apply the Jordan principle and stay the proceedings.
Remember, each situation is unique. It's best to seek advice from a legal professional.
What would be required to present the argument
To present the argument for staying the proceedings, you'd need to:
- Provide evidence showing the delay wasn't your fault.
- Demonstrate how the delay infringes your right to a speedy trial.
- Explicitly request that the judge apply the Jordan principle.
Remember, always seek legal advice for your specific case.
What evidence would be required
The evidence required could include:
- Documentation demonstrating the timeline of the case.
- Any correspondence showing you didn’t cause the delay.
- Any relevant legal precedents or laws.
Please seek professional legal advice for your specific situation.
Would the judges responsibility to ensure a fair trial to a self rep supersede the need to present evidence or documentation of the timeline or even presenting the argument? Would the necessity of a fair trial not be held in serious importance
The judge's responsibility is to ensure a fair trial, but this doesn't supersede the need for a self-rep to present their case. It's still essential to:
- Provide evidence supporting your argument.
- Demonstrate how the delay violated your right to a speedy trial.
- Present a clear, concise argument for applying the Jordan principle.
What if the defendant does not have the means to order transcripts
If the defendant cannot afford the transcripts in Canada, they can apply for a fee waiver. This allows low-income individuals to access court services for free. Please consult a legal professional for specific procedures in Nova Scotia.
Is there a professional or service you can recommend
Yes, Nova Scotia Legal Aid provides assistance to individuals who can't afford a lawyer. You may qualify based on your financial situation.

Nova Scotia Legal Aid


Phone: *-*-*
Website: www.nslegalaid.ca
Can I apply for a waiver through a lawyer in Ontario that I get for legal aid
Yes, you can apply for a fee waiver with the assistance of a lawyer obtained through Legal Aid Ontario. However, the waiver application must be made to the court in Nova Scotia where the trial is taking place.
Repeat
In a summary trial in Nova Scotia that exceeds 18 months, the judge can apply the Jordan principle and stay the proceedings - if the delay was not caused by the defendant. A self-represented defendant should present arguments showing the delay wasn't their fault and that it infringes their right to a speedy trial. Evidence could include documentation of the case timeline, correspondence, and relevant legal precedents. If the defendant cannot afford transcripts, they can apply for a fee waiver. Nova Scotia Legal Aid can assist those who can't afford a lawyer. A fee waiver can be applied for with the help of a lawyer from Legal Aid Ontario, but the application must be made to the court in Nova Scotia.
If I want to have my accuser charged with a false statement or have impeached, what is my best way forward
To have your accuser charged with making a false statement, you'll need to:
- Prove they knowingly lied under oath, which is perjury in Canada.
- Gather evidence supporting this, such as inconsistencies in their statements.
- Consult with a legal professional for advice tailored to your case.
Remember, this is a serious accusation, and it's best to seek legal counsel.
If my accuser did not mention her meeting with the crown where she mentioned kicked me in the balls and that I did not do what she accused me of, but not on the stand, is that strong evidence that she is lying
If these statements were made to the crown but not mentioned in court, it could suggest inconsistencies. However, whether this is strong evidence of lying depends on the context. Did these statements occur during a recorded conversation or meeting?
If she was asked if she made any other statements and she said no, despite the statement tot the crown, and a statement to police a year later confirming the kick
If these statements were recorded or documented, they may serve as evidence of inconsistency. However, the interpretation of such evidence should be done by a legal professional. Have you consulted a lawyer about this situation?
If her narrative also includes her putting herself in two places at the same time and in dispute with physical evidence and a proven receipt validating the evidence?
If there are discrepancies in her statements and physical evidence that contradicts her claims, these could potentially be used in your defense. However, it's crucial to consult with a legal professional who can provide advice tailored to your specific case.