R. v. Grindlay

R. v. Grindlay

Applicants failed to meet the Rowbotham threshold: their financial circumstances were not shown to be extraordinary, they could reasonably reorder priorities to fund counsel at legal aid-equivalent rates, and they had counsel willing to accept retainer at that rate; therefore denial of legal aid did not breach ss.7...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 BCSC 581
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Edward Grindlay; Accused: Peter Heemskerk
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Child Pornography / Pre Trial (rowbotham Application) in Chambers
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Fair Trial, Section 7 Charter, Section 11(d) Charter, Stay of Proceedings, Legal Aid Eligibility, Rowbotham Applications
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Legal Aid Law Right to Counsel Fair Trial Section 7 Charter Section 11(d) Charter +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Edward Grindlay

Accused

Peter Heemskerk

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Child Pornography / Pre Trial (rowbotham Application) in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of state-funded counsel where accused are ineligible for legal aid but cannot afford private counsel breaches ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether applicants demonstrated extraordinary financial circumstances such that a conditional stay (Rowbotham remedy) is required
  3. 3 Whether the seriousness and complexity of the offences require court-ordered counsel despite legal aid denial

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to meet the Rowbotham threshold: their financial circumstances were not shown to be extraordinary, they could reasonably reorder priorities to fund counsel at legal aid-equivalent rates, and they had counsel willing to accept retainer at that rate; therefore denial of legal aid did not breach ss.7 or 11(d) and no conditional stay was warranted.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for a conditional stay of proceedings dismissed