Image Credit: Shutterstock

CONTENT ADVISORY - This article deals with sexual violence

A BC man accused of committing multiple violent acts of sexual abuse against his wife has walked out of a courtroom a free man after the judge ruled the case had taken too long to get to trial and threw it out.

According to an Oct. 3 BC Supreme Court decision, Crown prosecutors made numerous mistakes throughout the proceedings that caused delays.

"The case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have. This relatively simple case could and should have been completed within 18 months, had the Crown provided sufficient clarity of the allegations facing the accused, which it possessed at the outset, from the outset, instead of setting forth a chain of delay," BC Supreme Court Justice David Crerar said in the decision.

The Justice dismissed the case on what is known as the Jordan rule, whereby a provincial court trial has to begin within 18 months of an accused being charged or 30 months in the Supreme Court.

The case involved an unnamed Fort St. John man whose wife went to the police in 2022.

"The wife alleged that the accused forced various forms of non-consensual sex upon her over roughly a two-year period," the decision read. She accused her husband of raping her and forcing her into several violent non-consensual sexual acts.

However, from the get-go Crown prosecutors made errors, originally charging the husband with a single count of sexual assault.

"(The charge) as originally drafted, spanning 27 months in the lives of a sexually-active couple, and providing no particulars of specific dates or forms of sexual assault, was inadequate for trial in the first place," Justice Crerar said in the decision.

Crown prosecutors later amended the charge, adding dates and specifics that the husband had choked her and caused bodily harm.

The change in the charges meant various legal steps had to take place, but they were "wholly overlooked."

This caused numerous lengthy delays.

"The Crown could have avoided all of this, and could have clearly informed the accused of the specific allegations he faced, by drafting a properly particularised (charges) from day one," the Justice said.

The Justice said the Crown's move left the accused unsure of the allegations against him.

"It compromises his ability to respond and prepare a defence. It also puts the court in a difficult position, particularly if the jury convicts the accused, and the court has to make sentencing findings... where, inherently, it is not clear whether the jury convicted the accused on one or some or all of the alleged incidents," the Justice said.

The decision went through a play-by-play account of what took place and pointed to the delays caused by the Crown.

The trial was due to start at the end of this month and the decision said the defence lawyer had raised concerns that time was running out more than a year ago.

"The chain of events unleashed by the Crown’s original ambiguous (charges), and late-stage redrafting of the (charges), was entirely in the Crown’s control," Justice Crerar said. "All court participants find themselves on the eve of this Supreme Court trial, 39 months after the start of these proceedings, and almost six years after the alleged incidents, largely due to the decisions, actions, and inaction of the Crown."

The Justice ruled the trial was nine months late and threw the case out.

NOTE TO READERS: To connect with a victim service program or violence against women program call VictimLink BC at 1-800-563-0808. VictimLink BC provides information and referrals to all victims, as well as immediate crisis response to victims of sexual and family violence.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.

News from © iNFOnews, 2025