Breach Within the Presumptive Ceiling

From Criminal Law Notebook
Revision as of 09:31, 17 August 2019 by Admin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderDelay}} ==General Principles== The Jordan framework allows for a finding of a breach of s. 11(b) even where the presumptive ceiling has not been reached.<...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

General Principles

The Jordan framework allows for a finding of a breach of s. 11(b) even where the presumptive ceiling has not been reached.[1]

A stay is still available while the period of time is within the ceiling, so long as the defence can establish:[2]

  1. "it took meaningful steps to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings", and
  2. "the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have".

It has been suggested that the court may still stay a charge within the Jordan time limitation where the delay is "shocking, inordinate and unconscionable".[3]

Rarity of Under-Ceiling Breaches

A stay within the presumptive ceiling should be considered "rare" and "limited to clear cases".[4]

"Meaningful" and "Sustained" Steps
  1. ↑ R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII)(complete citation pending)
  2. ↑ Jordan, ibid., at paras 48, 82 to 83, 105
  3. ↑ R v KGK, 2019 MBCA 9 (CanLII), per Cameron JA (2:1), at para http://canlii.ca/t/hxfhp
  4. ↑ Jordan, ibid., at paras 48, 69
Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Breach_Within_the_Presumptive_Ceiling&oldid=34007"