R. v. Jones
- Citation
- 1999 BCCA 282
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 20 April 1999
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Oral Reasons for Judgment by Court of Appeal; Conviction Set Aside and New Trial Ordered
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 20 April 1999
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Oral Reasons for Judgment by Court of Appeal; Conviction Set Aside and New Trial Ordered
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the trial judge did not provide the necessary assistance to a self-represented accused on a serious, historical sexual assault charge and the appellant demonstrated confusion about critical trial issues, the conviction was unsafe; the appropriate remedy is to set aside the conviction and order a new trial.
Court disposition
Conviction set aside and new trial ordered; appellant released on previous terms with modified surrender/appearance requirement
Orders
- Conviction set aside
- New trial ordered
- Appellant released on the same terms and conditions as the order of Mr. Justice Macfarlane dated 25 January 1999 except that the surrender provision is replaced with the requirement that Mr. Jones appear in the Supreme Court in Port Alberni at 10:00 a.m. on 31 May 1999 to fix a date for his new trial and thereafter as required until the case is concluded
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Respondent Counsel: Robert A. MulliganTimothy Michael Jones
Appellant Counsel: B. Rory MorahanAmounts and remedies
- Appellant Age: 40
- Years Since Alleged Offence at Trial: 9
- Conviction Year: 1,998
- Required Appearance Date YYYYMMDD: 19,990,531
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Oral Reasons for Judgment by Court of Appeal; Conviction Set Aside and New Trial Ordered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge failed in the duty to ensure a fair trial for a self-represented accused
- 02
Whether failure to explain the case, burden of proof, elements of the offence and trial procedure requires a new trial
- 03
Whether appellant's confusion about cross-examination and calling evidence rendered the trial unfair
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant, self-represented after legal aid issues and counsel conflict, was not given the necessary explanation of the case, burden of proof, elements of the offence or trial procedure; he was confused about cross-examination and calling evidence; these deficiencies denied him a fair trial and require setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.
- Respondent
- The Crown conceded that a new trial must be ordered.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal (Ryan J.A.), oral reasons R. v. Jones, 1999 BCCA 282
When an accused elects to represent himself the trial judge has a duty, depending on the circumstances, to give a brief explanation of the case, the burden of proof, the elements of the offence and trial procedure to ensure a fair trial
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the trial judge did not provide the necessary assistance to a self-represented accused on a serious, historical sexual assault charge and the appellant demonstrated confusion about critical trial issues, the conviction was unsafe; the appropriate remedy is to set aside the conviction and order a new trial.
Obiter and limits
- Appellant is a 40 year old Aboriginal man and the charge was nine years old at trial
- It was unclear whether earlier counsel had been retained through legal aid or privately
- The scope of the judge's duty to assist a self-represented accused depends on the circumstances
Court disposition
Conviction set aside and new trial ordered; appellant released on previous terms with modified surrender/appearance requirement
- Conviction set aside
- New trial ordered
- Appellant released on the same terms and conditions as the order of Mr. Justice Macfarlane dated 25 January 1999 except that the surrender provision is replaced with the requirement that Mr. Jones appear in the Supreme Court in Port Alberni at 10:00 a.m. on 31 May 1999 to fix a date for his new trial and thereafter as required until the case is concluded
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 20 April 1999
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Judgment· 20 April 1999
Citation: R. v. Jones Date: 19990420 1999 BCCA 282 Docket: VI03285 Registry: Victoria
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Before: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE RYAN April 20, 1999 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BRAIDWOOD THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MACKENZIE Victoria, B.C. BETWEEN:
R E G I N A
RESPONDENT AND:
TIMOTHY MICHAEL JONES
APPELLANT B. Rory Morahan appearing for the Appellant Robert A. Mulligan appearing for the (Crown) Respondent [1] RYAN, J.A.: Timothy Jones was convicted by a Supreme Court justice of one count of sexual assault on May 5, 1998. [2] When Mr. Jones made his first appearance to the charge in April of 1997, duty counsel advised the Court that legal aid had been temporarily refused. [3] At the next appearance Mr. Braker appeared for Mr. Jones but advised the Court that he was unable to appear because of a conflict. It is unclear whether Mr. Braker was retained through Legal Aid or whether Mr. Jones had privately retained him. In any event, on subsequent appearances Mr. Jones advised the Court that he would be acting for himself. [4] Mr. Jones is a 40 year old Aboriginal man. He was defending himself on a serious charge which was 9 years old. Where an accused decides to act for himself, the obligation of the trial judge to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial includes the duty (depending on the circumstances) to give the accused a brief explanation of the case, the burden of proof, the elements of the offence, and of the trial procedure. The appellant was not offered that assistance in this case. The appellant's submissions at the end of the trial indicate confusion about cross-examination and the necessity to call evidence. [5] The Crown concedes that there must be a new
trial. I agree. I would set aside the conviction and order a new trial. BRAIDWOOD, J.A.: I agree. MACKENZIE, J.A.: I agree. [6] RYAN, J.A.: The conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered. [7] Mr. Jones will be released on the same terms and conditions as the order made by Mr. Justice Macfarlane on 25 January, 1999, with the following exception. The surrender provision is to be replaced with the requirement that Mr. Jones appear in the Supreme Court in Port Alberni at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, 31 May, 1999, to fix a date for his new trial and thereafter as required until the case is concluded, according to law. "The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan"
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.