Pubdate: Wed, 10 Sep 2003
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2003, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Page: A5
Author: Jill Mahoney

ALBERTA JUDGE QUASHES CHARGES IN MEGA-TRIAL

EDMONTON -- The collapse of a high-profile drug-trafficking case is a 
damning blow to the trend of mega-trials involving several defendants, 
lawyers and observers said yesterday.

An Edmonton judge threw out charges against 11 people accused of conspiring 
to sell cocaine, saying the lengthy delay in trying the case -- chiefly 
because federal prosecutors and the RCMP were slow in disclosing evidence 
to the defence -- violated their Charter rights.

"The right to a fair trial encompasses the right to a reasonably speedy 
trial. In this case, that right has been compromised, largely by Crown 
action," Madam Justice Doreen Sulyma of the Court of Queen's Bench wrote in 
a decision released Monday.

The complex case, which began four years ago and had not yet progressed to 
the point of calling a jury, cost taxpayers dearly: The federal government 
spent an estimated $20-million in fees for defence lawyers and the Alberta 
government paid $2-million to build a high-security courtroom.

In September of 1999, police arrested and charged 36 people across Alberta 
with membership in organized crime and conspiracy to traffick cocaine. Most 
spent six months to a year in jail before they were released on bail.

After a year and a half of legal wrangling, the defendants were split into 
two groups. Over time, several people either pleaded guilty or the charges 
against them were stayed, eventually leaving a group of eight defendants 
and another of 11, whose charges of gang membership were stayed by the 
Crown in 2001, while the conspiracy charges remained.

The prosecution of the group of eight, who are accused of being members of 
an Asian gang, continues; however, their lawyers have asked that the case 
be dismissed because of similar delays.

"I've said from the beginning that too many people were charged with too 
many charges, and put all together it becomes unwieldy," said lawyer Hersh 
Wolch, who represented one of the accused in the case that was thrown out 
this week.

The matter has once again shown that so-called mega-trials -- wherein 
several people are tried together -- are inherently problematic, observers say.

"I think the whole idea of the mega-trial is quickly going the way of the 
dinosaur," said Sanjeev Anand, a law professor at the University of 
Alberta. "It's just too difficult to manage . . . and the prospect of the 
whole thing collapsing under its own weight is simply too real of a 
possibility."

Similar cases have run into difficulties in Quebec and in Manitoba, where 
prosecutors accepted plea bargains in a case involving suspected members of 
the Manitoba Warriors gang.

"There are lessons that have been learned over and over by the state. I 
think that there need to be changes," said Larry Fleming, a lawyer who was 
involved in the Edmonton case.

Prof. Anand said the culprit is not the federal government's antigang 
legislation, but the way the Crown pursued the case.

Rather than prosecute several people at once, he said, it would have been 
more effective to try three or four people at a time and then use 
convictions to get some of the lower-level criminals to provide evidence in 
exchange for lighter sentences.

"In the short term, unfortunately, what the collapse of this trial will 
mean to organized crime is that it's going to be very difficult to get 
people to turn over because the minute that you say, 'Well, we're going to 
charge you under the organized-crime legislation,' individuals will say, 
'Well, fine. Go ahead. We're going to beat this rap,' " Prof. Anand said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart