CA021764
Vancouver Registry



Court of Appeal for British Columbia




BETWEEN:

REGINA

RESPONDENT

AND:

RODNEY ALLEN BEAUPRE

APPELLANT




Before: The Honourable Chief Justice McEachern (In Chambers)



Buffy Blakley Counsel for the Appellant

William F. Ehrcke Counsel for the Respondent


Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia
September 25, 1996

Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia
October 7, 1996




Written Reasons by:
The Honourable Chief Justice McEachern (In Chambers)


Court of Appeal for British Columbia



Regina

v.

Rodney Allen Beaupre




Reasons for Judgment of Chief Justice McEachern



1 The Appellant has appealed his conviction for a sexual assault
but he has not been sentenced because the Crown proposes to proceed
against him as a Dangerous Offender.

2 Both parties request that the conviction appeal be heard by
this Court before the Dangerous Offender proceedings are
undertaken. Their reasons are that the appeal will only take a day
but the other proceedings will likely take about three weeks or
more. The parties agree it will be more convenient to have the
appeal heard first because, should it succeed, it may not be
necessary to proceed further with the other matter.

3 I was persuaded to accede to counsel's joint submission but I
said that I would give brief written reasons for my decision.
These are my reasons.

4 The Dangerous Offender proceedings are scheduled to be heard
in the Provincial Court in Cranbrook commencing February 24, 1997.
The conviction appeal has been set for hearing in Vancouver on
February 11, 1997.

5 Counsel have very properly brought to my attention some
authorities that suggest the conviction appeal should not be heard
until the completion of the Dangerous Offender proceedings. These
authorities are R. v. Dieffenbaugh, CA013008, Vancouver Registry, dated
November 29, 1990 (B.C.C.A.); and R. v. Shortreed, (1990) 54 C.C.C.
(3d) 292 (Ont. C.A.).

6 Dealing first with Shortreed, I note that the Ontario Court of
Appeal adjourned an appeal awaiting the completion of Dangerous
Offender proceedings. At p. 310, the court expressed the view
that, "...it is desirable, in general, for the court to consider
the appeal from conviction and the appeal from sentence together."
No reasons are given except for the observation, based upon R. v.
Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, that Dangerous Offender proceedings are
a part of the sentencing for the substantive offence. In this
province, of course, we do not usually hear the conviction and
sentence appeals together.




7 With respect to Dieffenbaugh, decided in 1990, I was a member
of the panel that later heard the conviction appeal after the
appellant, following a long hearing, had been found to be a
Dangerous Offender. We allowed the conviction appeal in part,
particularly with respect to an important count, and I regret to
say that the second Dangerous Offender proceedings have not yet
been completed.

8 In my view, the authorities do not foreclose the possibility
of hearing the appeal from conviction before the Dangerous Offender
proceedings are completed.

9 While I have no idea whether the conviction appeal has any
reasonable prospect of success, counsel for both parties urge me to
direct the early hearing of the appeal. While I do not wish to lay
down any general rule, I think I should give considerable weight to
the views of counsel. If there is any reason why the Dangerous
Offender proceedings should be completed before the appeal is
heard, I would expect learned counsel for one party or the other to
explain why the interests of justice require proceedings that may
never be required be completed before it is known whether they will
be necessary.

10 Having regard to the possibility of saving considerable time
in the Provincial Court without delaying the Dangerous Offender
proceedings, I ruled that the conviction appeal should proceed on
February 24, 1997 or on any earlier date that can conveniently be
arranged.






"The Honourable Chief Justice McEachern"