Madalyn Cristina Bavaro

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge refused to hold a voir-dire to assess the competency of a conditionally accredited Amharic interpreter.

The trial judge insisted that a fully accredited interpreter was mandatory and invited the Crown to call no evidence when one could not be provided.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that there is no constitutional right to a fully accredited interpreter, only a competent one, and that the trial judge was obligated to conduct a voir-dire to determine competency under section 14 of the Charter.

The accused applied for an order permitting him to re-elect his mode of trial to judge and jury, dispensing with the requirement for the Crown's consent under s. 561(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued his previous re-election to judge alone was not informed or voluntary.

The court found the accused's re-election to judge alone was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, and that there was no evidence of a miscarriage of justice or Crown abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.