Convict denied legal aid for appeal

A Prince George man will have to argue an appeal of his conviction for aggravated assault on his own after a B.C. Appeals Court Justice upheld a Legal Services Society decision to deny him legal aid funding.

In November 2011, Cameron James Rose was sentenced to 18 months in jail and three years probation after he was found guilty of throwing a rock at a man who was loading Rose's truck with logs.

The rock hit the man in the eye and causing injuries severe enough to require several surgeries, the court heard during the trial.

In a reasons for judgment, Appeal Court Justice Jo-Ann Prowse found there is no dispute Rose met the financial requirement for legal aid but also found the case was simple enough that Rose could represent himself.

She noted Rose chose to represent himself at trial after two prior lawyers had withdrawn from the case earlier in the proceedings and the trial judge gave him basic instructions on how to do so.

Rose cross examined the two witnesses the Crown called to testify - the victim and the man who drove the victim to hospital - but elected not to call evidence on his own behalf.

Rose appeared to try to show the victim had actually injured himself by falling off the truck or by being hit by some other debris and that he may be involved in an effort to get worker's compensation through fraud.

Rose also asserted the Crown failed to prove its case because it had not produced the rock as evidence and the passage of time had made the victim's testimony unreliable.

However, the judge found the witnesses' evidence reliable and found Rose guilty.

In his application for appeal, Rose asserted he was acting in self defence, the witnesses had fabricated a case against him and maintained the trial judge denied him counsel.

Rose also provided new evidence in his application but Prowse found all of it would fail the tests for admission on appeal.

Rose also argued the sentence was excessive and downplayed a substantial criminal record as instances of wrongful convictions and overstated culpability, all of which Prowse found misconceived.

And while Rose's education stopped at Grade 10, Prowse found him intelligent enough and, when asked, able to get to the point despite a tendency to express unrelated grievances.

The court will have no trouble honing in on the issues to be resolved without the need for counsel, Prowse concluded.

"In my view, the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel for this appeal," Prowse said. "There was nothing complex about the trial or the issues at trial. The evidence was limited and straightforward. Mr. Rose was given the option of presenting evidence, including his own evidence, and he chose not do so."