R. v. Fforsyth

R. v. Fforsyth

The application for assignment of counsel under s.684(1) was denied because the evidence proffered was speculative regarding the applicant's mental state at the time of offence and plea, the applicant had been represented by experienced counsel, and he was not subject to imprisonment; those factors meant it was not in the interests of justice to assign counsel or fund a psychiatric assessment.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1801
Parties
Respondent/crown: Regina; Appellant/accused: Robert Wayne Fforsyth
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (summary Conviction) / Pre Appeal Application Under S.684(1) for Assignment of Counsel
Outcome
Application under s.684(1) denied; no counsel assigned
Legal Topics
Assignment of Counsel Under S.684(1), Withdrawal of Guilty Plea, Competency to Plead, Psychiatric Assessment, Miscarriage of Justice
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Procedure Mental Health Law Evidence Assignment of Counsel Under S.684(1) Withdrawal of Guilty Plea Competency to Plead Psychiatric Assessment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent/crown

Robert Wayne Fforsyth

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (summary Conviction) / Pre Appeal Application Under S.684(1) for Assignment of Counsel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should assign counsel under s.684(1)
  2. 2 Whether the guilty plea should be set aside for incompetence or involuntariness
  3. 3 Whether speculative psychiatric evidence justifies funding further assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for assignment of counsel under s.684(1) was denied because the evidence proffered was speculative regarding the applicant's mental state at the time of offence and plea, the applicant had been represented by experienced counsel, and he was not subject to imprisonment; those factors meant it was not in the interests of justice to assign counsel or fund a psychiatric assessment.

Court Disposition

Application under s.684(1) denied; no counsel assigned

Orders

  • Application to assign counsel under s.684(1) denied
  • No order for funding of a psychiatric assessment