The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has released Ammaan Charley (“Charley”) from custody due to an excessive sentencing delay. Charley was facing a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for his conviction of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a restricted firearm in January 2017.
On January 15, 2015, Charley, 22-years-old at the time, entered Mr. Jerk’s West Indian Grocery on Eglinton Avenue West with a loaded revolver. He proceeded to pistol whip the clerk on his forehead and skull, ripped the gold chain off of his neck and demanded money at gunpoint. The clerk believed he was going to be killed and began wrestling over the gun. The struggle ended up in the laneway outside of the store and the clerk accidentally fired two shots.
At the time of the incident, Charley had a criminal record of violent crime and gun possession.
In January, 2017, Justice E.M. Morgan ruled that Charley was guilty of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a loaded, restricted firearm.
Charley has remained in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre from the date of his arrest through to the date of his section 11(b) Charter of Rights and Freedoms application regarding sentencing delay.
WHAT HAPPENED POST TRIAL?
Following Charley’s conviction, the Crown brought an Application detaining Charley for the purposes of having a psychiatric assessment to be used as evidence in a proposed application to have him declared a dangerous or long-term offender. It took seven months to receive his records. The request for the psychiatric assessment was dismissed on June 22, 2017.
The defence brought a number of constitutional challenges regarding pre-trial detention and the manner in which inmates are treated at the Detention Centre. These accusations included no outside yard time, no recreational facilities, double bunking in cells designed for a single inmate, no visitation rights except using a screen through a video camera, and routine invasive searches. These challenges resulted in several days of evidentiary hearings and legal arguments. Some of these constitutional challenges were dismissed on February 22, 2018. At the time of the application regarding sentencing delay, the balance of the evidence regarding the constitutional challenges was still waiting to be completed.
In late June, 2018, Justice Edward Morgan stayed the charges against Charley relying upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s R. v. Jordan decision. The charges were stayed by the court on the basis that too much time had passed since Charley’s conviction and that his constitutional rights had been breached by the unreasonable delay.
According to the Jordan decision, which we have previously blogged about, cases tried in the Superior Court must be concluded within 30 months. To date, most of the cases reviewed by the courts for violating the Jordan decision concern pre-trial delays. In this case, the court was looking at a sentencing delay that occurred after the accused had been found guilty. Charley was convicted 24 months after charges were laid and his sentencing was not scheduled to occur until 17 months later.
The Jordan decision only briefly referenced sentencing delays. The Supreme Court wrote:
[W]e make no comment about how this ceiling should apply to [Jordan] applications brought after a conviction is entered, or whether additional time should be added to the ceiling in such cases.
Justice Morgan reviewed the history of proceedings in detail in his written decision, making appropriate calculations for any delays attributed to the defence. He concluded that the total delay in this case was 32 months (24 months of pre-trial delay and 8 months of sentencing delay).
Justice Morgan concluded that this delay was above the presumptive ceiling as set out in the Jordan decision. That decision upholds the protection of security of the person and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. Therefore, Justice Morgan concluded that Charley’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been infringed, the proceedings were stayed, and Charley was released.
It is unclear at this time whether the Crown prosecutor will appeal this decision. It is possible that the Ontario Attorney General’s Office will request that the Court of Appeal review this decision as it is sure to have a significant impact on the justice system.
We will continue to follow any developments in this case and will provide updates in this blog should they occur.
In the meantime, if you have been charged with a criminal offence or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Barrison Law online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are not afraid to fight for your rights and protect your interests.