The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings unless the state funded his defence on a charge under the Excise Act.
The court found that a previous Rowbotham decision had already determined the accused’s indigency and inability to fund counsel, creating issue estoppel preventing relitigation of that question.
The court further concluded that despite the relative simplicity of the possession charge, the presence of statements evidence, a jointly charged co‑accused represented by counsel, and the potential for incarceration created a real risk that the accused could not receive a fair trial without legal representation.
A conditional stay was therefore warranted to permit the state an opportunity to provide publicly funded counsel.
