Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Measures — Continued

Goal 3: Prosecution of all offences is timely, fair and effective.

Outcome:

Prosecutions that are consistent with, or which surpass, performance targets for timeliness

Timely prosecution contributes to fair and effective processing of criminal matters. This goal helps foster public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the justice system.

If the processing of criminal matters is not done within a reasonable period of time, the charges against the accused may be dismissed by the courts, without an adjudication on the merits of the case.

Persons accused of committing a crime should be brought before justice as expeditiously, fairly, and effectively as possible for a number of reasons.

• At trial, the evidence is more complete and accurate if the trial is closer in time to the events it concerns.
• Delay in getting to trial may make it more difficult for the accused to obtain and present defence evidence.
• Minimizing pre-trial detention or bail supervision contributes to fairness as an accused person is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
• Minimizing the length of bail supervision or pre-trial detention contributes to the effective use of resources.
• Sentences are more meaningful if imposed closer in time to the offending behaviour, especially for young offenders.

Witnesses, victims and their families suffer increased distress and disruption of their lives until the matter is concluded. Timely processing of criminal matters allows victims and witnesses to begin the process of bringing closure to the matter.

Time to disposition is defined as the median number of days elapsed from the swearing of the first Information to the conclusion of sentencing. It is considered a measure of the overall timeliness of processing criminal matters through the court system.

However, time to disposition is not a measure of the work only of the branch responsible for prosecutions, nor is it a measure of the work of the Ministry of Attorney General in isolation. Time to disposition can be viewed as a measure of the combined components of the criminal justice system.

Several branches of the ministry have roles to play in the timely processing of criminal cases through the courts, but no one branch has exclusive control over this measure. For instance, the Criminal Justice Branch can make its decisions and prepare its documents in a timely manner, but these activities are not necessarily determinants of the median number of days to disposition.

Other justice partners may have considerable influence upon the time to disposition. These independent justice partners have different and sometimes competing interests. They include:

• judiciary;
• defence bar and legal aid;
• trial schedulers;
• Court Services Branch;
• Corrections Branch;
• police; and
• Federal Crown counsel and prosecution services.

In addition, some factors that can greatly affect the time to disposition are outside of the sphere of influence of the Ministry of Attorney General, such as:

• economic climate;
• social conditions;
• complexity of crimes;
• crime rate;
• level of police activity;
• changes to law and procedure created by case law or legislation (e.g., Youth Criminal Justice Act, etc.);
• changing demographic patterns;
• movement of people across the country;
• involvement and availability of witnesses (expert, civilian, and children or other vulnerable witnesses);
• unrepresented accused or mentally ill or addicted accused persons; and
• defence appeals and re-trials.

Although median time to disposition has not yet been tested, it is anticipated that it will provide an indicator of the timely and effective delivery of prosecution services. This measure will require development and thorough testing before baseline information and targets can be determined. Despite the factors noted above, within current resource constraints, the measure and targets will maintain the time to disposition within a range of 5-10 days of a baseline level.

Core Business Area:

Prosecution Services

Objective 1:

Timely charge assessment where there is:

• police process
• no police process

In British Columbia, the prosecution of offences has two distinct phases: Crown charge assessment and conduct of the prosecution. Objective 1 addresses the timeliness of the first phase — charge assessment — under two different circumstances: with, and without, police process.

The following two-part measure of elapsed time to conduct charge assessments is thought to indicate a meaningful measure of the timeliness of decisions made by Criminal Justice Branch. Because the measure is new, it will require development and thorough testing to establish baselines and targets.

For the first part of this measure, targets will specify that, where the police have released the accused and have served the accused with a document that requires the accused to attend court on a specified first appearance date, Crown counsel will conduct the charge assessment within a set number of days (the target for this situation) after receiving the investigative report (Report to Crown counsel).

For the second part of the measure, targets will specify that, where a first court appearance date has not been set by police, Crown counsel will conduct the pre-charge screening within a specified period of time after receiving the investigative report (Report to Crown counsel).

If charge assessments are conducted early:

• victims can be contacted and given the opportunity to provide information on the impact of the offence on them;
• disclosure of information about the Crown's case and initial sentence position can then be provided to the accused (or defence counsel) giving the accused and counsel more time to decide their course of action before the first court appearance. Consequently, the first appearance can become a meaningful event, thereby avoiding an adjournment;
• if any further police investigation is required, the additional investigation can be conducted early making the first appearance a more meaningful event and avoiding an adjournment;
• if the police have not given the accused a court date, the earlier a charge is approved, the sooner a summons (or warrant) can be issued by the Judicial Justice of the Peace and the sooner the court process can commence; and
• if the charge assessment is not completed early, the provision of information cannot be completed in time for the defence to be prepared to commit to a course of action by the first court date and it will have to be adjourned.

Although these two measures have not been tested, it is thought that they will provide a clear indication of the contribution made by this core business area to the timeliness of processing the matter to the next stage.

Objective 2:

A fair and effective charge assessment process

Objective 2 addresses fairness and effectiveness of the charge assessment process within current resource constraints. Fairness and effectiveness can be maintained by proceeding to court with only those cases that should go to court, seeking alternate solutions where appropriate and screening out charges that should not be seen by the court.

Historically, approximately 83 per cent of all accused persons have charges that are approved to court by Crown counsel. The remaining accused persons received the following charge assessment decisions.

• Nine per cent were not charged.
• Four per cent completed the Alternative Measures Program.
• For three per cent, the matters were returned to police for more information.
• One per cent received caution letters.

Strategy for Objectives 1 and 2:

1. Conduct early pre-charge screening following receipt of the investigative report (Report to Crown counsel).⁶

Objective 3:

Timely conduct of prosecutions

Timeliness, in part, is reflected by Crown's prompt provision of the disclosure documents and the initial sentencing position to the accused person (or to their defence counsel), which enables the accused to prepare their defence and make the court appearances meaningful.

When disclosure and the Crown's initial sentencing position are provided promptly, the accused can make early and informed decisions such as whether to:

• retain counsel;
• dispute the charges;
• plead guilty; and
• dispute or accept the Crown's position on sentence.

This measure is considered to be a very valuable and relevant measure of performance. However, the measure is not currently available in the JUSTIN database. The Criminal Justice Branch will continue to pursue avenues to acquire this measure by requesting changes to the JUSTIN database.

This measure will capture multiple functions that Crown performs on a routine basis, all of which contribute to timely prosecutions. For example, the provision of disclosure involves the following functions.

• When charges are approved, Crown reviews file material to determine relevant and appropriate disclosure.
• The disclosure package is prepared prior to first appearance for delivery to the accused or counsel.
• When new information is received, it is immediately reviewed and disclosed to the accused or counsel, if appropriate.

The measure will also capture functions involved with the provision of an initial sentencing position (ISP). This process requires Crown counsel at charge approval to:

• review circumstances of the offence and of the history and circumstances of the accused;
• obtain and review relevant information on the impact of the offence (financial, emotional and physical) on victims and the community, the risk to individuals and the community, and the availability of appropriate correctional or community facilities and programs;
• engage in appropriate consultation or notification (police, Corrections, victims, other Crown counsel offices with outstanding charges); and
• ensure delivery of the initial sentencing position, if one is formulated, and explain it to unrepresented accused persons.

Strategy:

Contribute to the timeliness of prosecuting criminal matters by promptly providing disclosure documents and the initial sentencing position.

Objective 4:

Fair and effective conduct of prosecutions

Fairness and effectiveness involve a balance that reflects the interests of the accused, the witnesses, victims and the public. For example, Crown counsel provide information about the case and the Crown's position and assist unrepresented accused persons. As well, Crown counsel respond to the requests of victims for information, appropriate input and for court orders that protect their safety and privacy.

A fairness and effectiveness objective is very relevant. Measuring fairness, however, is a challenge facing every justice system. Many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, are working to resolve the complexities of measuring this concept.

Information on effectiveness that might be used to develop measures is not currently captured by the ministry's JUSTIN database. The ministry continues to explore ways of acquiring measures for this objective by assessing possible changes to the JUSTIN database.

When they are developed, these measures will capture many routine functions that Crown performs to ensure fair, effective prosecutions. Fairness and effectiveness include consideration for the accused as well as for witnesses, victims and their families during the course of the prosecution. Consideration by Crown counsel and staff can comprise:

• provision of disclosure;
• post-charge assessment review of the case prior to trial, on the basis of the charge assessment criteria, to ensure its continuing viability;
• consideration of defence requests, post-charge assessment, and alternative measures referral;
• provision of information to victims and their families about the case, victim services and general information about the justice system;
• requests for terms to protect the safety of victims or witnesses in bail or sentence orders; and
• application for testimonial aids for witnesses, such as screens or the use of video link technology.

Strategy:

Contribute to fair and effective prosecutions through efforts to:

• reduce unnecessary distress, cost and inconvenience to witnesses, victims and their families;
• balance the interests of the accused, the witnesses, victims and the public;
• monitor any developments in the available evidence and ensure that if the case no longer meets the charge assessment criteria, the Crown will stay the proceedings;
• disclose new material to the accused when received by Crown counsel, including victim impact information; and
• ensure that Crown prosecutorial discretion is guided by principles consistently applied throughout the province.