Complaining that he was allowed to self-rep won't fly but he may have had a shot with delay if he'd argued it at trial. Since the release of the Supreme Court
Jordan decision there have been a huge number of cases stayed because of delay, even murder charges. The problem is that the Supreme Court gave a 30 month period from charges to start of trial but didn't state that it wasn't retroactive. So all kinds of cases in process were affected by retroactive application. One I was attending was stayed because of
Jordan and just recently there was a judicial scandal when an Ontario judge stayed murder charges because of the
Jordan time limit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ad ... -1.4279138
However since he apparently didn't bring
Jordan up at trial he can't use it on appeal. It was released July 2016 and his trial was this year so he had the opportunity to argue it. I guess that, as a self-rep, he didn't know enough law to know of
Jordan's implications.
R. v. Jordan
[2016] 1 SCR 631
2016 SCC 27
http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3
For an example of Kassam's legal acumen check this;
R. v Kassam
2016 ONSC 6961
http://canlii.ca/t/gwq61
Kassam was, in the end, convicted for stealing $6,000. That's it. But he has a history of similar offenses. This is what the judge had to say about him;
[11] Mr. Kassam has apparently been studying law at a university in England known as Oxford-Brookes. He has completed some 2 ½ years of study. He wished to defer his sentencing for several months in order to complete his schooling, which request I denied. I am puzzled as to why Mr. Kassam is attending law school when he already has a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Renfrew, or at least holds himself out as having such a degree. Moreover, the urgency to concluding his schooling is lost on me given the unlikelihood that he will ever be permitted to practice law in the Province of Ontario in light of his criminal record.
[12] Mr. Kassam has an unenviable criminal record, largely for offences of dishonesty. In January 2004 he was convicted of fraud over $5000, uttering a forged document, two counts of possession of property obtained by crime and personation with intent. In April 2005 he was convicted of fraud under $5,000, uttering a forged document and theft under $5,000. In August 2005 he was convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and two counts of uttering a forged document. In February 2007 he was convicted of making a false statement in relation to a passport. In November 2011 he was convicted of four counts of uttering a forged document as well as one count of false pretences.
[13] Mr. Kassam’s choice of a criminal lifestyle is tragic because, from what I have witnessed, had he pursued his career honestly, he could have been a very competent lawyer.
R. v Kassam
2017 ONSC 74
http://canlii.ca/t/gwq5x
