R. v. Whaling

R. v. Whaling

Application dismissed because applicant failed to meet the heavy evidentiary burden: he did not provide detailed, corroborated financial evidence or show prudent prioritization of legal funding and he failed to demonstrate particularized complexity or a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial absent counsel;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 BCSC 41
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Christopher John Whaling
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Rowbotham (state Funded Counsel) Application During Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; no stay of proceedings granted
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, State Funded Counsel, Rowbotham Application, Fair Trial, Legal Aid Eligibility
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Counsel State Funded Counsel Rowbotham Application Fair Trial Legal Aid Eligibility

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Christopher John Whaling

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Rowbotham (state Funded Counsel) Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the state must provide and fund counsel under s.24(1) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated financial indigency to justify state-funded counsel
  3. 3 Whether the charges are sufficiently serious or complex that defence counsel is essential to a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because applicant failed to meet the heavy evidentiary burden: he did not provide detailed, corroborated financial evidence or show prudent prioritization of legal funding and he failed to demonstrate particularized complexity or a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial absent counsel; the Crown case was largely complete and the accused appeared capable of self-representation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no stay of proceedings granted

Orders

  • Application to stay proceedings dismissed
  • Proceedings to continue as scheduled