In R v. Parchment, the BC Court of Appeals considered the question of whether the Court can exercise section 684 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, to appoint counsel to assist a self-represented, incarcerated offender prepare an appeal where the offender’s ability to do so is constrained by practical and security institutions in which the offender is housed.
The accused did not receive Legal Aid on the basis that his appeal had little merit and applied under section 684 for an appointment of counsel. At the Supreme Court, Madam Justice Huddart denied the application, regarding the accused as being able to represent himself. The accused reopened his application on the basis that he was constrained in his ability to prepare for his appeal by the limitation on computer time, inability to print material and the limited access to the law library at his place of incarceration and reopened the application for a defence counsel to assist specifically with preparing for the appeal. A Justice in Chambers does not have the authority to entertain a fresh application for the appointment of counsel without a change in circumstances. While Chiasson J.A. was not convinced there was a change of circumstances in this case, he held that he had authority to consider the application as the accused had changed relief requested from the appointment of counsel to represent him to the appointment of counsel to assist him in preparing for the hearing.
While Chiasson J.A. found that he had the authority to appoint counsel under section 684 to assist an incarcerated offender with preparing for appeal, he did not exercise that authority in this case, finding the resources afforded to the accused sufficient.
April 8, 2011
Link to Decision
Mary Phan
*
No comments:
Post a Comment