Understanding R. v. Jordan: A New Era for 11(B)

Abstract

R. v. Jordan: In ascribing content and meaning to 11(b) through a presumptive guideline, the Supreme Court has set out an expectation for compliance with a constitutional right. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message that serious cases should be given priority if the state has a genuine interest in prosecuting them. Inadequate resources can no longer be used as an excuse to justify the dilution of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. There is absolutely no reason why serious charges should fall by the wayside in a system which gives them proper consideration. The state must get organized, prioritize its cases, and allocate its resources with a view to ensuring that the system respects 11(b), a right which our system has historically disregarded. That being said, when the charges are extremely serious and the delay is understandable, the Jordan framework should find a way to justify it regardless of the “number”. The meaning of “complexity” will have to be contextually understood. And sometimes a number will just be a number. If we fail to approach 11 (b) in a contextual way and instead treat the presumptive ceiling as a death sentence for any case regardless of the equities and the various competing interests, then Jordan will truly become a step backwards for the administration of justice.