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"