Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
Accused killer Justin Bone stood up in court earlier this week and announced that he was firing his lawyer. Again.
It’s been almost four years since Bone was charged in the fatal beatings of 64-year-old Hung Trang and 61-year-old Ban Phuc Hoang in Edmonton’s Chinatown.
In that time, Bone has booted at least four lawyers off the case, some of whom have been fired more than once. These include current counsel David Wolsey, who has represented Bone at several points since he was first charged in May 2022.
On Thursday, Bone retracted his decision to fire Wolsey, just as he did in January.
It raises the question of how far an accused person can go in firing their legal representation.
‘No bright line rule’
According to Paul Moreau, past-president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association, there is “no bright line rule” on how often an accused can fire their lawyer.
“The accused always has the right to his counsel of choice and has the right to change lawyers,” he said. “An accused also has the right to represent themselves, although that’s usually not a good idea.”
However, that right must be balanced against the need for trials to proceed in a timely manner.
“Even if an accused fires his lawyer, that doesn’t automatically mean that he’s entitled to an adjournment of the trial,” said Moreau.
Justin Bone was charged with second-degree murder in relation to the killings of two men in Edmonton’s Chinatown in May 2022. (Justin Bone/Facebook)
When Bone addressed the court Tuesday about dismissing Wolsey, Justice Paul Belzil made it clear he would not delay proceedings if Bone carried through with that decision.
“We’re coming up to the fourth anniversary of these terrible events, and I am not adjourning this trial,” he said.
The role of the judge
Ultimately, it is up to the judge to determine whether the interests of justice are best served by continuing the trial with a new lawyer, with no lawyer, or by granting an adjournment to allow new counsel to prepare, Moreau explained.
“Judges have to be concerned with the efficient use of scarce court resources, but they also have to be conscious of the right of the accused to a fair trial,” he said. “In complex cases, it’s very difficult for the accused to get a fair trial without legal representation.”
Moreau added that judges generally prefer that an accused person have a lawyer. The absence of representation places an added responsibility on the judge to safeguard trial fairness.
It also increases the risk of an appeal, he said.
“It throws an additional burden on the judge to be scrupulously careful to protect the fair trial interests of the accused,” Moreau said. “And it raises the possibility that something may happen that a court of appeal later might look at and say the trial was unfair.”
The role of an amicus curiae
An amicus curiae — Latin for “friend of the court” — has been present throughout the trial.
Moreau said the role is filled by an independent lawyer who helps ensure the trial is fair both to the accused and to the Crown. An amicus can cross-examine witnesses and make legal arguments when necessary to ensure fairness, but does not act as defence counsel.
On Tuesday, Bone said he would rely on the amicus if he chose to represent himself, but that suggestion was quickly shot down by the judge.
For now, Wolsey remains on the record as Bone’s lawyer.
“These sorts of things have certainly happened before,” Moreau said. “I wouldn’t say it’s common, but it’s not rare.”