We're all getting jerked around by the coronavirus but, just for one brief moment, I thought there might be a plus side I could salvage from the wreckage of my various rapidly collapsing plans.
I'd noted in my last posting on Millar's bail hearing that I was not going to attend his sentencing appeal hearing because I had cataract surgery scheduled for the same day as the hearing. Given that I'm heading towards functional blindness I considered that of somewhat more importance. But also with a bit of a regret because when Michael's sentencing appeal hearing is concluded it will mark the end of my years of Porisky/Paradigm reporting. Michael, through interminable delays, was the last man standing.
However yesterday, three days before my surgery, the province of British Columbia cancelled all elective surgery starting immediately to clear hospitals for the anticipated coronavirus tidal wave.
But, on the bright side, it meant I was now free on the 19th. Call me an irresponsible fool (my wife substitutes 'senile' for 'irresponsible', feel free to supply your own adjectives) but I couldn't pass up the sudden opportunity and, ignoring the prophecies of doom, planned to take public transit downtown to attend Millar's last hearing. Until I got this from The British Columbia Court of Appeal website this afternoon;
Appeal Hearings and Chambers Applications Currently Scheduled to occur between 18 March 2020 and May 1, 2020
All appeal hearings, chambers applications and other matters currently scheduled to occur between 18 March 2020 and 1 May 2020 are adjourned unless designated by the Chief Justice as matters that must proceed.
The Court is examining its docket and creating a list on an ongoing basis of matters that must proceed (for example, urgent criminal, family law or child protection matters). Litigants to an appeal designated as a matter that must proceed will be contacted by the registry and the matter will be presumptively heard remotely by teleconference or in writing.
For matters that are not designated as matters that must proceed, parties who consent to have their appeal, chambers application, or other matter heard by teleconference or in writing may contact the registrar in writing to request the permission of the Chief Justice, or his delegate, to proceed by alternative means.
Further information will follow regarding the rescheduling of adjourned appeals, chambers applications and other matters.
Millar's sentencing appeal hearing is manifestly not one of those "matters that must proceed". Although Michael might think otherwise this delay in no way adversely prejudices him since he has no chance of getting his jail sentence reduced or eliminated. He'll be serving out his current sentence regardless of when, if ever, he gets a hearing date. As I've reported he's already had a sentencing appeal hearing, I was there, but he skipped and did not advise the court that he wasn't attending resulting in the court issuing an arrest warrant. So he might share my opinion of his chances.
However what this might mean is that once the courts start functioning again and Michael finally gets his hearing I may be able to attend. I'm looking forward to one more chance to witness his brilliant legal analysis.
One more point. A
mea culpa about a blindingly stupid comment I made in my write-up of Millar's bail hearing that I was oblivious to until I just re-read the posting. I wrote;
Crown moved on to grounds 3, the administration of justice. "He does not have a strong sentencing appeal. There is no principle that would affect sentence. His sentence was on the low end of sentencing range. In my opinion there is no chance he will serve a significant portion of his sentence before the appeal is heard. All sitting dates in March are available."
A bit of an explanation here since this issue came up again later. This refers to the possibility that if Millar is held until his sentencing appeal he may end up serving more time than he would have served had he just started his actual sentence without appealing it. This could happen two ways which can act separately or together;
1 - An appeal could result in a reduction of his custodial sentence. Currently he is to sentenced to 30 months in jail which, with a mandatory reduction, will only come to 20 months. If his sentence is reduced at the appeal hearing this might be even less. In the very unlikely event that an appeal eliminated his jail time altogether or his sentence was changed from custody to a conditional sentence to be served at home any jail time incurred from now to the appeal decision would be in excess of his final sentence.
2 - The time he serves from now until the sentencing appeal hearing might exceed his sentence time even if it is not reduced on appeal. As I noted above Millar can anticipate serving 20 months in jail. If bail is refused and he is held for over 20 months while waiting for a hearing date he will have served excess time.
The issue was the possibility that if Millar was not granted bail he might end up serving more jail time waiting for his appeal than he would serve if he didn't appeal or if a sentencing appeal granted him some relief.
Point 1 above is valid. If he is allowed a conditional sentence on appeal (effectively spending his sentence at home) then any jail time he serves waiting for his hearing is excessive to his sentence. But point 2 is just idiotic. I was saying that he could (theoretically) spend more time in jail waiting for his appeal than he would have spent just serving his sentence without an appeal. That's clearly impossible. If he was still waiting for his day in court when his effective sentence of 20 months was up he'd be released
because he'd have already served his full sentence. I have no idea why I thought otherwise.
