R. v. Gorman

R. v. Gorman

Application dismissed because applicant failed to provide the required detailed and extraordinary evidence of financial ineligibility, did not appeal Legal Services Society's decision, did not demonstrate he made every reasonable effort to obtain counsel, and the court found the issues and evidence at trial not sufficiently complex to make state-funded counsel essential to ensure a fair trial.

Citation
2013 BCSC 2053
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Brent Kenneth Gorman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Theft / In Chambers Application for Conditional Stay (rowbotham Application) Under S.24(1) Charter
Outcome
Application for conditional stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.24(1), Charter S.7, Charter S.10(b), Charter S.11(d), Conditional Stay, Rowbotham Application, Legal Aid Eligibility
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Legal Aid Charter S.24(1) Charter S.7 Charter S.10(b) Charter S.11(d) Conditional Stay +2 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Brent Kenneth Gorman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Theft / In Chambers Application for Conditional Stay (rowbotham Application) Under S.24(1) Charter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conditional stay under s.24(1) Charter is warranted for denial of state-funded counsel
  2. 2 Whether the accused is financially ineligible for legal aid such that state funding must be provided
  3. 3 Whether legal representation is essential to ensure a fair trial in this matter

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because applicant failed to provide the required detailed and extraordinary evidence of financial ineligibility, did not appeal Legal Services Society's decision, did not demonstrate he made every reasonable effort to obtain counsel, and the court found the issues and evidence at trial not sufficiently complex to make state-funded counsel essential to ensure a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Application for conditional stay dismissed

Orders

  • Application for conditional stay under s.24(1) dismissed
  • Documents presented at the hearing excluded for non-compliance with prior court orders