R. v. Colbourne, 2018 NLCA 9

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Cleon Colbourne (applicant/respondent) (17/30) Indexed As: R. v. Colbourne 2018 NLCA 9 2 C.A.N.L.R. 522 Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador Welsh J.A. February 7, 2018

Summary: The Crown appealed the respondent’s acquittal. The respondent applied for the assignment of counsel pursuant to section 684(1) of the Criminal Code . Held: Application allowed. Welsh J.A.: The Court considered the unique confluence of factors including that the appeal was a Crown appeal with potentially complex legal issues and the respondent’s limited financial means, which exceeded the legal aid threshold but were insufficient to retain counsel, and concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the respondent should be assigned counsel pursuant to section 684(1) of the Criminal Code .

Counsel: Sheldon Steeves, for the appellant; Appearing on his own behalf (by telephone), the applicant/respondent; Jessica Pynn, for the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador. This application was heard and decision rendered orally on February 6, 2018 by Welsh J.A. The following Memorandum of Disposition was filed on February 7, 2018 by Welsh J.A. ______________________________________________________________ Welsh J.A.: [ 1 ] At the hearing on February 6, 2018, I granted Mr.

Colbourne’s application for the assignment of counsel pursuant to section 684(1) of the Criminal Code , which provides: A court of appeal or a judge of that court may, at any time, assign counsel to act on behalf of an accused who is a party to an appeal … where, in the opinion of the court or judge, it appears desirable in the interests of justice that the accused should have legal assistance and where it appears that the accused has not sufficient means to obtain that assistance. [ 2 ] This is an appeal by the Crown following the acquittal of charges against Mr. Colbourne.

I was satisfied that the assistance of counsel is necessary given the nature of the appeal, which may raise complex legal issues. While Mr. Colbourne was refused legal aid because he did not meet the financial threshold, I was satisfied that, in his particular circumstances, his financial means would likely mean he would have difficulty in retaining counsel. I emphasized in Court that I do not consider this case to be precedent setting, but was relying on the unique confluence of factors, being a Crown appeal, with potentially complex legal issues and considering Mr. Colbourne’s limited financial means.

[ 3 ] In all the circumstances, I concluded that, in the interests of justice, Mr. Colbourne should be assigned counsel pursuant to section 684(1) of the Criminal Code . Application allowed .