SaltWire E-Edition

Fraud, breach of trust charges back in effect for ex-coast Guard supervisors

Court of Appeal overturns stay of proceedings in case of Kevin Barnes and Brian Stone

TARA BRADBURY JUSTICE REPORTER tara.bradbury @thetelegram.com @tara_bradbury

Charges of fraud and breach of trust against two former senior managers with the Canadian Coast Guard are back in effect.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has overturned a stay of proceedings in the case of Kevin Barnes and Brian Stone, who were jointly charged in 2015. The stay was issued in 2019 after the men successfully argued their rights had been breached by an unreasonable delay in getting to trial.

The men are alleged to have used government purchase orders and acquisition cards to purchase components to develop a piece of marine tracking equipment called the Pathfinder, later building and selling the machines through a company they had incorporated. It’s alleged that the men charged $171,500 worth of parts and services to the Coast Guard and made more than $200,000 profit.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2016 Jordan decision set time deadlines for criminal cases making their way through the courts. In superior courts across the country, the limit is 30 months. Once that deadline has passed, an accused can make an application to have the matter thrown out, but only if the delay is proven to be unreasonable. Any delays caused by the accused don’t count toward the time limit.

The trial judge found 53 months and 17 days had passed between when the charges against Barnes and Stone were filed and the anticipated conclusion of their trial, attributing six months and six days to Barnes and three months to Stone. The Crown appealed the judge’s decision to stay the charges, alleging he had erred by failing to attribute a further 15month, 20-day delay to the two accused.

The Crown submitted that the delay had related to obtaining disclosure — in particular, information on

Coast Guard computer hard drives. The Crown argued the information constituted thirdparty disclosure and should have been the accused’s responsibility to obtain.

Justice Gale Welsh, Justice William Goodridge and Justice Francis O’brien heard the appeal in September and issued their decision Monday, Nov. 29, saying the information on the computers had not been required by the Crown to lay the charges against Barnes and Stone.

While the Crown has an obligation to disclose information that may assist an accused in their defence at trial, it is not responsible for getting information for the purpose of supporting the defence.

“In this case, the defendants claimed that they required information from the hard drives in order to demonstrate that they had the tacit approval of the Coast Guard to use government purchase orders and acquisition cards to purchase components for the Pathfinder,” Welsh wrote and the other judges concurred. “The Coast Guard refused to release the hard drives to the Crown, taking the position that it had provided to the Crown all the information relevant to the charges of fraud and breach of trust. The Crown was satisfied that it had the necessary information to lay the charges and provide disclosure to the defendants.”

It was the responsibility of Barnes and Stone to get the hard drive information, the appellate judges determined, finding the resulting trial delay should have been attributed to them.

Subtracting the delays for which the two men were responsible, the trial was held up by 27 months, the judges determined — three months short of the Jordan deadline.

The judges also rejected a submission from Barnes and Stone that their direct indictment should be declared null since the cover page had indicated the trial would be by judge alone rather than by judge and jury. The judges did, however, grant leave for the men to make submissions on the issue.

LOCAL

en-ca

2021-12-01T08:00:00.0000000Z

2021-12-01T08:00:00.0000000Z

https://saltwire.pressreader.com/article/281535114269004

SaltWire Network