R. v. R.J.H., 2012 NLCA 28

Date: 20120531 Docket: 12/09 Citation: R. v. R.J.H. , 2012 NLCA 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN : R.J.H. APPELLANT AND : HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Coram: Welsh J.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Happy Valley/Goose Bay, 2010008T0022 Appeal Heard: May 31, 2012 Judgment Rendered: May 31, 2012 (Orally) Memorandum of Disposition filed: May 31, 2012 Counsel for the Appellant: Self Represented Counsel for the Respondent: Stephen R. Dawson MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION Welsh J.A.: [ 1 ] R.J.H. applied to this Court for an order under

section 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of counsel to assist with his appeal against conviction. After Mr. R.J.H. and Crown counsel were heard and their submissions considered, the application was dismissed. Following is a

summary of the basis for that decision. [ 2 ] As set out in R. v. Ryan , 2008 NLCA 42 , 277 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 167, at paragraph 9 , four issues fall to be considered for purposes of the application: (

a) does the applicant have the means to engage legal counsel for his appeal; (

b) if not, will Legal Aid provide counsel for the appeal; (

c) are there serious (i.e. not frivolous) issues to be dealt with in the appeal; (

d) will the appellant adequately be able to present his case and will the court be able properly to decide the case without the

assistance of counsel. [ 3 ] In this case, the Crown conceded the first two items; that is, Mr. R.J.H. does not have the means to engage legal counsel for the appeal, and Legal Aid, while providing counsel for the Crown’s cross-appeal on sentence, has refused Mr. R.J.H.’s request for counsel on the appeal against conviction. However, the Crown submitted that Mr. R.J.H.’s application should be dismissed for failure to meet the last two criteria. Given the nature of the issues raised by the appeal, I was satisfied that Mr.

R.J.H. will be able to present his case adequately and that the Court will not require the assistance of counsel in order to properly decide the appeal. Accordingly, this is not a case where an order should be made for the appointment of counsel under

section 684 of the Criminal Code . Mr. R.J.H.’s application was, therefore, dismissed. [ 4 ] The appeal against conviction was set down for hearing on Wednesday, June 13, 2012. ______________________________ B.G. Welsh J.A.