Search results
R. v. Jordan [2] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 ...
R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631. Barrett Richard Jordan Appellant. v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. and. Attorney General of Alberta, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and
- Facts of R V Jordan
- Issues in R V Jordan
- Decision/Outcome of R V Jordan
Jordan, who worked for the United States Air Force, stabbed a man as the result of a disturbance. The victim died in hospital eight days later. The post-mortem found that the victim died of broncho-pneumonia following the abdominal injury sustained. The court in the first instance found Jordan guilty. The doctor who treated the victim contacted the...
A key issue in this case was whether and under what circumstances could a court listen to additional evidence. One of the pre-requisites for such an application was that it must be shown the evidence was not available at the initial trial stage. The appellant had also raised various defences including provocation, self-defence and the fact that it ...
The court held that the additional evidence was of a nature that would probably have affected the jury’s verdict. The additional evidence opined that the death was not caused by the wound at all but that the medical treatment was inappropriate. The victim was intolerant to terramycin which was noticed and initially stopped before being continued th...
On July 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada released R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 [Jordan], a decision that fundamentally changed the framework that determines whether an accused has been tried within a reasonable time under s 11(b) of the Charter. While the impact of explicitly overthrowing a well-established framework with years of precedent remains to be seen, it is clear that this decision has ...
Apr 2, 2024 · The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jordan3 marks a significant change as compared to the prior law. Indeed, in this decision (numbering 303 paragraphs), the majority judges discarded the framework established in Morin, noting the unforeseeability of its application, the inconsistencies in the treatment of the concept of ...
Jordan was a case involving a man charged with 14 drug offences who waited over four years for his trial. [1] The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Mr. Jordan’s charges should be dismissed, with the majority introducing new timelines for determining what is unreasonable delay. The new framework introduces time limits by which criminal ...
People also ask
What R v Jordan changed Jordan?
How has R v Jordan changed criminal law?
What did the Supreme Court decide in R v jordan3?
Will the court system be able to accelerate R v Jordan cases?
Was the delay in Jordan's case unreasonable?
How has the Jordan decision changed assessing delay to trial?
Dec 17, 2019 · R v KGK, briefly stated, was an appeal on the issue of whether or not the Jordan ceiling include the judge’s decision-making time.11 Post-conviction delay is not currently addressed in legislation nor does Jordan address it.12 The appellant raises the issue of sentencing delay as engaging Section 11 Charter rights to justify the extension of ...
