Shuaiqi/CLSum huggingface dataset:
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules the delay for the retrial of a quebec father charged with multiple sex offences was reasonable. in 2011, jf was charged with seven counts of sexual offences involving his daughter committed between 1986 and 2001 in quebec. following a preliminary inquiry, jf's trial began before the court of qu bec in late 2013. meanwhile, in 2016, the supreme court of canada issued its ruling in r v jordan. in that case, the supreme court established limits on the amount of time between a person being charged and the conclusion of their trial. the limit is 30 months for a trial in a provincial court, such as the court of qu bec, following a preliminary inquiry. eventually, jf's trial ended with his acquittal in 2017, six years after he was charged. the crown appealed to quebec's court of appeal, which ordered a new trial. before the retrial began, jf asked the court to stop or 'stay' the proceedings. he argued that the delays during his first trial and before his retrial were unreasonable. due to these delays, jf argued his right under the canadian charter of rights and freedoms (charter) 'to be tried within a reasonable time', was violated. the retrial judge agreed with jf that his section 11(b) charter right had been violated. the crown appealed to quebec's court of appeal. the judges on that court ruled that the delay for each trial must be considered separately. they said that it would only be necessary to consider the delay for the retrial, if the delay for the first trial were reasonable. in jf's case, however, the first trial delay was unreasonable. so the court of appeal dismissed the crown's appeal and did not consider the retrial delay. the crown then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has sided with the crown. only the delay for the retrial is counted. writing for a majority of the judges of the supreme court, chief justice richard wagner said the jordan decision requires both the crown and the defence lawyers to act in a timely manner. this includes the accused raising an issue of delay promptly. as a result, in the case of a single trial, an accused who believes their right to be tried within a reasonable time has been violated must raise the issue before their trial. sometimes an accused may raise the issue on appeal, but that would be exceptional. an accused should not raise the delay for their first trial after an appeal court has ordered a retrial. once an appeal court has ordered a retrial, the chief justice said only the delay for that retrial counts, and the same time limit as set out in the jordan case applies. a delay from the first trial will be considered in exceptional circumstances only. in this case, jf did not raise the delay issue before or during his first trial, and he did not raise it at the court of appeal. he only raised it at his retrial. so only the delay for the retrial can be considered. that delay was 10 months and 5 days, which is well below the 30-month limit. as such, it was reasonable, and there is no reason to stay the proceedings.
supreme court of canada the supreme court sets aside an alberta man's convictions for a 2017 home invasion robbery. shawn metzger was convicted of offences arising from the home invasion robbery in june 2017, in the small town of morningside, alberta, near red deer. he was allegedly part of a group of three or four perpetrators who stole a truck. the truck belonged to mr. valentin iten, one of the two victims of the robbery. the vehicle was found approximately 11 hours later, outside a bar in red deer. neither of the victims clearly saw the perpetrators during the robbery. at trial, the prosecution relied on two pieces of evidence to identify mr. metzger as one of the thieves. first, mr. metzger's dna was on a cigarette butt found in the stolen truck. second, mr. iten testified that he may have heard someone say 'metzger' during the robbery. mr. metzger did not testify at his trial. based on this evidence, the trial judge concluded mr. metzger participated in the robbery. alberta's court of appeal dismissed mr. metzger's appeal. it found the trial judge was correct in determining mr. metzger's guilt in the robbery. one judge disagreed, which permitted mr. metzger to appeal his case to the supreme court of canada as of right. an appeal 'as of right' is available in some criminal cases where one judge on the court of appeal has dissented on a point of law, as was the case here. this means the appellant does not need to apply to the supreme court of canada for permission to have their case heard. the case can be heard if the appellant simply files a notice to this effect. the supreme court has allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and substituted acquittals. mr. metzger's convictions were unreasonable based on the evidence presented at trial. writing for a majority of the judges, justice malcolm rowe found mr. metzger's guilty verdicts were unreasonable based on the totality of the evidence. first, the dna evidence on its own was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. it only established mr. metzger's presence in the stolen truck at some point, rather than his participation in the actual robbery. second, mr. iten's testimony with respect to hearing the name 'metzger' was fraught with frailties. he had been struck on the head at the beginning of the robbery, and was fading in and out of consciousness throughout. during his testimony, mr. iten had questioned his own recollection of what he heard that night. justice rowe also determined that mr. metzger's decision not to testify at trial could not be raised against him. the evidence in this case was not such that it 'cried out for an explanation that only [his] testimony could provide'. for these reasons, justice rowe stated that 'no trier of fact, acting judicially, could reasonably be satisfied that the accused's guilt was the only reasonable conclusion available'.