Skip to content

The ReeveLaw Blog

Criminal Defence Law Blog

DOES THE “JORDAN” CEILING OF 18 MONTHS APPLY TO YOUTHS? – In R. v. Jordan the S.C.C. protected the constitutional right to trial within a reasonable time by setting a presumptive ceiling of 18 months in Ontario Court proceedings. The court decided that the same ceiling applies to youth justice court proceedings. The clock runs at the same rate for youths. At least for now.

Posted bywpengine 15 November 2019

Source: R. v. K.J.M. – SCC Cases (Lexum)

Posted bywpengine15 November 2019Posted inUncategorized

Post navigation

Previous post Previous post:
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES – Do we have them or not? Does an accused person have the right to participate in the selection of the jury that is going to try him? Nobody knows. It makes it extremely difficult to pick a jury. This is an excellent example of how hard cases make bad law.
Next post Next post:
WHY DO WE WEAR GOWNS IN COURT? – “The centuries-old tradition of gowning in court is overdue for a modernization.” Yes, it is tradition but the Canadian Bar Association is advocating for exceptions such as pregnancy or other personal circumstances, such as medical conditions or disabilities. I ask why we, now well into the 21st century, continue to wear gowns at all.

Recent Posts

  • THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT – In view of the recent arrests of young people as guns for hire and a 12-year-old who ran down a police officer, it’s good to know what the maximum penalties for serious offences are under the Act.First degree murder – 10 yearsSecond degree murder – 7 yearsIt is possible that, if the youth is 14 years of age or older, the Crown can apply for a Judge to impose an adult sentence, in which case the YCJA maximums do not apply.
  • WAIT! WHAT? WE’RE GETTING MIXED MESSAGES.
  • HERE IS WHAT WE ALL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
  • The “overwhelming disappointment,” she wrote, is believing that in Canada, “we would be better than this. “The actions of the (Maplehurst) officers prove sadly that we are not.”
  • CREDIT TO THIS MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT WHO UNDERSTANDS THE PROBLEM
The ReeveLaw Blog, Proudly powered by WordPress.