R. v. Paul

R. v. Paul

The court held that for the unauthorized snow crab fishing charge the applicants could not receive a fair trial without legal counsel, had exhausted all reasonable avenues to obtain counsel, and therefore counsel was essential; accordingly the court ordered a conditional stay of proceedings on the unauthorized fishing charge (as the appropriate remedy under s.24(1) of the Charter) unless satisfactory Crown-funded arrangements for counsel were made. The court held that for the obstruction charge there was no air of reality to a treaty defence and the applicants could receive a fair trial unrepresented, so no relief was granted on that charge.

Citation
2002 NSPC 25
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant / Applicant: Gregory Christopher Paul; Defendant / Applicant: John Peter Paul
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fisheries Act Offences (unauthorized Snow Crab Fishing; Obstruction) / Pre Trial Application for State Funded Counsel; Decision Issued
Outcome
Stay of proceedings ordered for unauthorized snow crab fishing charge as to both applicants, conditional upon satisfactory Crown-funded arrangements for counsel; obstruction charge not stayed and may proceed; court willing to set trial date for obstruction charge when parties ready.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Section 7 Charter, Section 11(d) Charter, State Funded Counsel, Treaty Defence, Stay of Proceedings, Fisheries Act Offences, Obstruction, Unauthorized Fishing
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Aboriginal Law Fisheries Regulation Right to Counsel Section 7 Charter Section 11(d) Charter State Funded Counsel +5 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Gregory Christopher Paul

Defendant / Applicant

John Peter Paul

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fisheries Act Offences (unauthorized Snow Crab Fishing; Obstruction) / Pre Trial Application for State Funded Counsel; Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether state-funded counsel is essential to ensure a fair trial under ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have exhausted all avenues to obtain counsel
  3. 3 Whether there is an air of reality to a treaty-based defence for the unauthorized snow crab fishing charge

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that for the unauthorized snow crab fishing charge the applicants could not receive a fair trial without legal counsel, had exhausted all reasonable avenues to obtain counsel, and therefore counsel was essential; accordingly the court ordered a conditional stay of proceedings on the unauthorized fishing charge (as the appropriate remedy under s.24(1) of the Charter) unless satisfactory Crown-funded arrangements for counsel were made. The court held that for the obstruction charge there was no air of reality to a treaty defence and the applicants could receive a fair trial unrepresented, so no relief was granted on that charge.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings ordered for unauthorized snow crab fishing charge as to both applicants, conditional upon satisfactory Crown-funded arrangements for counsel; obstruction charge not stayed and may proceed; court willing to set trial date for obstruction charge when parties ready.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings on the unauthorized snow crab fishing charge in respect of both applicants, conditional on satisfactory arrangements by the Crown to fund legal counsel
  • No stay granted on the obstruction charge; court prepared to set a trial date for the obstruction charge when parties are ready