Charges against a Sudbury teenager accused of brandishing a weapon at a local high school have been stayed by a Sudbury judge, who ruled Wednesday the Crown was at fault for unnecessary delays in bringing the matter to court.
Stephen Wong, 19, was facing numerous weapons charges in relation to an incident at Lasalle Secondary School in the fall of 2004.
Court heard Wong was expelled from school as a result of this incident, which allegedly involved a pellet gun.
Just before the matter was supposed to go to trial a year ago in November of 2005, the Crown asked for an adjournment because full disclosure had not been provided to defence counsel Andrew Buttazzoni, who was shortly thereafter promoted to a provincial court judge.
Buttazzoni stated his objections to any further delays and asked that the matter proceed to trial at that time.
An adjournment was granted and the trial resumed earlier this year.
On Wednesday, Justice Guy Mahaffy ruled he would have found Wong guilty of the weapons charges, but said he had no choice by the stay the charges.
He agreed Wong's rights relating to unnecessary delay in bringing the matter to court under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated.
The information which was not provided to defence counsel pertained to a hearing to expel Wong from school following this incident.
In a three-page written decision, Mahaffy ruled he agreed with key Crown witnesses the accused was clearly pointing a weapon at others the day in question and simply not pointing it at the ground.
"The only conclusion to which I can come is that Mr. Wong was brandishing the gun about and, at some point, fired in the direction of people who were forced to run from the danger," said the veteran judge. "Whether someone was actually hit cannot be found to have been proved...it is clear that, after firing off the weapon, the accused reloaded at least once."
That evidence was corroborated by a Greater Sudbury police officer who arrived on the scene, said Mahaffy.
The accused's evidence could not be believed "nor is it worthy of belief" as his answers at trial suited his own spin on how he wanted events to be perceived by the court, Mahaffy ruled.
Wong was contradictory within his testimony and contradictory with previous statements, he said.
"His actions, as submitted by the Crown, were clearly a marked departure from the standard expected of a reasonably prudent person," he said.
With respect to the Charter application over undue delay, the Crown had no difficulty so far as any breach was concerned up until Nov. 10, 2005, said Mahaffy.
However, providing late disclosure to defence counsel at that time, which required a further 7.5-month delay, created an unreasonable delay, he ruled.
The late disclosure issue was clearly the fault of the Crown and Buttazzoni made it clear his client objected to any further delays, said Mahaffy.
"His client did not want the matter unduly delayed because he wanted matters finalized. I find this a clear assertion of his (Charter) rights.
"The Crown must take responsibility for this unnecessary delay."
The expulsion hearing held against Wong "was not a minor detail...and the Crown must take responsibility for this serious oversight."
The case would not have been adjourned last November if this key disclosure had been made available, as it should have been, said Mahaffy.
"The late disclosure was unfair to the defence and unnecessarily prolonged the case at least another seven months, thereby breaching Mr. Wong's rights."
