Skip to main content

Editorials Globe editorial: Take your pick: Speed or fairness in the courts?

The unforeseen consequences of R. v. Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on trial delays, are getting curiouser and curiouser.

In principle, the Jordan decision is meant to protect accused people from having serious criminal charges hanging over their heads for too long – by setting hard time limits on criminal proceedings.

But an accused also has the right to choose his or her lawyer. What happens if that lawyer's schedule causes a case to take too long to come to trial? The Supreme Court didn't fully think such conundrums through.

Story continues below advertisement

Which brings us to the case of Curtis and Corey Murray, two brothers accused of first-degree murder. The men were promptly charged; there was a preliminary inquiry, and last fall, they were committed to trial. A six-week trial was proposed for September or October, or January, 2018. So far, so within the Jordan time limits.

However, Curtis Murray's lawyer says she is not available until March. If the trial is postponed until then, that would appear to violate the Supreme Court's hard deadlines. A deadline violation could mean that charges would have to be dropped.

The Criminal Lawyers Association says the state shouldn't get in the way of the client-lawyer relationship, and Ontario Superior Court Justice Todd Ducharme agrees. Fair enough. But what about the Crown's legitimate concern, and society's, that a murder case risks being thrown out because of a delay?

The case against the Murray brothers has not yet gone on too long, and the charges have not been dropped. The Jordan deadline in this case isn't yet past – but a schedule is being proposed that appears to ensure it will be. The Crown is worried, and with reason. Given the large number of criminal charges that have already been throw out, the Jordan ruling has created a big, difficult problem.

Of course an accused should be able to hire the lawyer he wants. And of course the Crown should let him have that lawyer, even if it results in a delay of a few months. How did the Supreme Court turn this into something potentially unconstitutional?

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter