R. v. Black Pine Enterprises Ltd.

R. v. Black Pine Enterprises Ltd.

The applications were dismissed because the applicants failed to discharge the heavy Rowbotham burden: each had accessible assets (equity in properties, shares, vehicles) and made insufficient efforts to use or seek release of those assets to fund counsel; they did not demonstrate that they exhausted legal aid...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 BCSC 1849
Parties
Crown/prosecutor: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Black Pine Enterprises Ltd.; Respondent: Permit Holdings Ltd.; Respondent: 413597 B.C. Limited; Accused: Jacqueline Davis; Accused: Steven Robert Davis; Accused: Irene Eleanora Perry; Accused: Gorden Edward Perry; Accused: Catherine Greenlaw; Accused: Mary-Jean Thompson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal (rowbotham Application) / Pre Trial — Oral Ruling on Applications for State Funded Counsel (rowbotham)
Outcome
Rowbotham applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Rowbotham Application, Right to Counsel, Fair Trial, Self Representation, Assets and Funding of Defence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Legal Aid/access to Counsel Rowbotham Application Right to Counsel Fair Trial Self Representation Assets and Funding of Defence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecutor

Black Pine Enterprises Ltd.

Respondent

Permit Holdings Ltd.

Respondent

413597 B.C. Limited

Respondent

Jacqueline Davis

Accused

Steven Robert Davis

Accused

Irene Eleanora Perry

Accused

Gorden Edward Perry

Accused

Catherine Greenlaw

Accused

Mary-Jean Thompson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (rowbotham Application) / Pre Trial — Oral Ruling on Applications for State Funded Counsel (rowbotham)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants are unable to afford counsel and have met the heavy evidentiary burden for a Rowbotham order
  2. 2 Whether applicants exhausted legal aid remedies
  3. 3 Whether applicants made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel or to use available assets to fund counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because the applicants failed to discharge the heavy Rowbotham burden: each had accessible assets (equity in properties, shares, vehicles) and made insufficient efforts to use or seek release of those assets to fund counsel; they did not demonstrate that they exhausted legal aid remedies or that the charges involved exceptional complexity such that proceeding unrepresented would deny them a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Rowbotham applications dismissed

Orders

  • Rowbotham applications of Steven Robert Davis, Jacqueline Davis and Gorden Edward Perry are dismissed.
  • Application of Catherine Greenlaw is adjourned generally.