My Analysis On Section 11(b) in light of common sense R V Jordan PDF

Preview

Summary

My Analysis On Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms in light of common sense R V JORDAN...

Description

My Analy Analysi si siss On Section 11(b)

in light ig ht of common sense, I was able to research and find why the Jordan case judgement, Legal Framework and ultimately the Jordan rule was so important to Section 11(b) of the charter to protect the rights of the accused. I would like an educated opinion (hint hint professor) as to what made Jordans infringements on his section 11(b) right so much more important than then the 100s of other Canadians who suffered similar infringements while in the courts. What I find fascinating is a wide range of flagrant rights violations that are ongoing with impunity in certain provinces in Canada, where other provinces choose to regard the charter as the supreme law of Canada. It seems 100% acceptable that the level of integrity in governance and judicial proceedings varies from province to province. A jurisdictions respect for the charter is according to that province's level of the integrity it chooses to exhibit in the practice of law and governance. It seems our leaders are acceptably corrupt if they choose to be and are not regarded for their high levels of moral and ethical conduct within our judicial system and levels of government. As such, one province's superior court judges may make judgements that may exhibit a high quantum of integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they hold as individuals. Subsequently this would unveil itself within the judicial proceedings and/ or governance that he or she engages in. This being a fact in estimating the level of integrity in different regions of different societal bodies, can we really say with a straight face that all our provincial and/or federal judicial systems operate with integrity in both areas that bare relevant to an 11b infringement which is the judicial proceeding, and I’m sorry but the institutions responsibility of duty and care is the responsibility of the province or country. Although the court refuses to accept responsibility for the institution’s contribution to the delay One must accept this responsibility when deciding if the time of delay was unreasonable. I was unable to find where Jordan won his appeal it could be due to my lack of experience in the field, or it could be since he lost in every province in every appeal court all judges agreed with the judgments prior to their proceedings that what he suffered was not unreasonable Apparently, the Jordan legal framework was bred from a case that lost at trial and then lost what I see as 1 trial 4 appeals in 4 provinces. (Mind you there where a few more i didn't read) For some reason the legal hierarchy’s responsible for things such as the development of legal frameworks in order to prevent rights violations got together and decided let's make a famous framework that makes Canada look like they are one of the world's leaders in respecting the rights of their citizens, from a case that lost , well base it on a small time drug dealers infringements that were denied by what I counted as n 12 supreme court appellate judges… I suppose without these changes, the culture of complacency towards trial delay will continue to erode the S.11(b) Charter rights of accused persons. I believe it is cause for concern when rights abuse runs rampant with impunity and judicial authorities pick and choose which ones to treat with notoriety which

exhibits the integrity of our legal system where others completely disregard the blatant disregard for the accused right to speedy trial and this goes unnoticed, unsanctioned, and ignored. This shows and is quite disturbing, fascinating, and definitely very interesting how one province can operate as if it has no obligations to govern itself in respect to the charter or not even as though it is a part of Canada. When a higher court blatantly disregards clear cut evidence of infringements to the accused rights and is presented under the MORIN framework and go unfounded. This can only be referred to as “A legal framework” that has been implemented and ignored in multiple kangaroo courts throughout the country. It is concerning how no judicial authorities, political parties or legal representatives have chosen to set the precedent in some of the provinces, until The Jordan Rule and legal framework was developed. Again, raises the question of why his case is so special. Ultimately, changes to the current structure and operation of the criminal justice system are required to immediately reduce trial delays beyond the current Jordan presumptive ceilings. All participants of the criminal justice system should strive towards the further reduction of these presumptive ceilings for trial delay in Canada. The time it currently takes to complete a trial when nobody is watching or when lawyers are contributing the minimum requirements of defence, this makes the whole process so vehemently and disdainfully unreasonable. The mental and physical suffering is not fully accounted for in calculating if the delay was unreasonable. These are what the courts should consider before things such as institutional delay and other faults in the different ways the appellate judges choose to separate who is responsible for different percentages of delay to determine if it's considered unreasonable. The fault of the crown is the responsibility of the province or country, the institution is the province or country and should be regarded as such when doing the calculator of responsibility. If 4 years go by and you blame the prison for 62% of it, does it somehow change what the accused suffered and how long he or she suffered through it. The bus getting a flat while bringing the accused to court is the fault of the province or the country this happens while being held by the province or country then anything that is not the fault of the accused is the fault of the province or country The judicial system needs to stop delegating blame therefore making sure there is no accountability therefore no reform then subsequently perpetuating the cycle which in more cases than not when a social reintegration program is not immediately implemented in a specific manner it undoubtedly assures recidivism, which honestly might be the goal. (As I’m typing, I’m wondering if prisons went private in Canada because this would make perfect sense check that to-do list) The right to a trial within a reasonable time was characterized by the as societal as opposed to individual. The accused would rather a violation of his or her S.11(b) rights and a remedy under S.24(1) than to have a speedy disposition. This rhetoric sent the message that the right to a trial within a reasonable time is irrelevant.

Accused individuals have waited for years for trial to proceed with little to no recourse. Under the Morin framework, the accused had the burden of proving prejudice beyond the fact that the trial had taken longer than the recommended guidelines. Crown and institutional delay were protected, prejudice had to be proven to be granted a remedy. It allowed the criminal justice system to institutionalize lengthy trials as the norm, fostering complacency among all participants. It was not until Jordan, when prejudice was removed as a prerequisite to a S. 11(b) violation. But its also still an issue is even now post Jordan, the judge can take months to decide on the verdict and even under the new Jordan ceiling. judge deliberation time is not included under the umbrella of the Jordan rule. The presumptive ceilings set out in Jordan do not include the time taken by judges to impose a sentence (K.G.K., supra at paragraphs 3 and 23). Decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal have found that the time frame for sentencing must by analyzed in accordance with the principles set out in Jordan, although subject to its own separate presumptive five-month ceiling (R. v. Charley, 2019 ONCA 726 at paragraphs 77-87; R. v. Hartling, 2020 ONCA 243 at paragraphs 98-99). Top of the deceitful Jordan agenda masquerading under as a much-needed legal framework of the Canadian judicial system, the fact that the court does not and account for the following suffering of the accused to determine what is or is not a reasonable time of delay. Before i go into what is NOT being calculated when deciding what is an unreasonable time of delay I would like to note that an unreasonable time of delay is a major contributing factor in an internationally recognized toolkit which includes “The Torture Reporting Handbook’ when international bodies are attempting to determine if torture and other inhumane and degrading treatment has taken place. With That being a fact, its clearly shows unreasonable trial delay is a serious matter with severe effects on a persons mental physical and spiritual well being and should no way be an issue in Canadian higher courts, or any courts in Canada for that matter when its an element which contributes to what amounts to torture. University of Essex, Human Rights Centre, The Torture Reporting Handbook: How to document and respond to allegations of torture within the international system for the protection of human rights, February 2000, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/49918c8a2.html [accessed 4 July 2020]

These are primary contributing factors in what Assures the individual will reoffend and promote mass recidivism nationwide These factors cannot be justified by some immoral game of judicial hot potato where is the potato is “it wasn't us, it was them” then pass the potato around circle of blame and injustice until no one is held accountable for the delay and ultimately perpetuating the clear cut violations on an accused’s rights and the accused has suffered subsequently mentally physically and financially without confirmation that he is even guilty of his charges

This kind of prejudice is not calculated, and it is suffered beyond the lengths of an acceptable time frame that can be legitimately justified. Calculations of pain and suffering both mentally and physically must be calculated by the following stress factors and anxiety inducers resulting from a multitude of factors while waiting to stand trial including.

1. The stigmatization of an accused when returning after a long period of the absence an unexpected long term all expense paid government field trip to prison brings. 2. The loss of personal privacy, 3. possible disruption of family which will have a historical effect on one’s children,

4. loss of social life which will breed the need for a social reintegration program, which is a factor in what Substantiates recidivism of individuals nationwide 5. The rupture of relationships and the toll that takes on a person’s mental psyche

6. loss of employment and the long-term effects that will incur by the sudden absence and effects it will have on future employment, which is also a factor in what Substantiates recidivism of individuals nationwide 7. The legal costs attached while incarcerated while incapable of generating an income, need to be considered for the accused upon his or her release, which is also a key factor in what Substantiates recidivism of individuals nationwide 8. The uncertainty as to the outcome and sanction(s) that he/she will eventually surrender to.

This section 11b was part of our so-called supreme law which is labeled as one of Canada’s greatest accomplishments. (See attached cartoon) since before it was the charter and was part of the Canadian constitution, yet up until now it’s been irrelevant. One must consider these fundamental factors of an accused(s)overall suffering while he/she is waiting to stand trial in the kangaroo courts of Canada. That is my analysis in light of common sense as well as my attempt to support and defend the S.11b I’ve taken the liberty and included some other information I found in my research

I’m quite certain they set the precedent with the development of that legal framework which bred and educational initiative. Which are somehow connected … Although it is not written or told or admitted that the two unrelated issues which are in completely different societal areas are connected upon searches from the darknet which subsequently crashed my computer and the reason my assignment was late. There is also a lot in image searches when government or judicial parties are3 attempting to conceal information however the 2 keep popping up together not only in regard to the name either. I am yet to unfold the connection. This is most likely because his case is so special subsequently it bred a completely unrelated issue of reform in the education system referred to as “Jordans principle” considering he was charged with a dial a dope operation which was what the Jordan framework was based on, it obviously makes perfect sense that an education initiative to help native children get school supplies also be part of his legacy. The initiative may be attributed to the fact that in 1984 Jordan was charged with historical sexual abuse, therefore government officials thought it would be a good idea to develop an education initiative for native children and name it after a dope dealing pedophile. Makes perfect sense…

One needs to think first really...