The parties made their first appearance in the Superior
Court of Justice on May 18, 2012. On that date, the appellants’
co-accused Wilson did not attend court as he had absconded
during the preliminary inquiry. A bench warrant was issued for
his arrest. The matter was adjourned to May 30, 2012 for a
 On May 30, 2012, the judicial pre-trial was again
adjourned (to June 8, 2012) to set a trial date.
 On June 8, 2012, a trial date was set for November 13,
2012. The trial was scheduled to run for six weeks. Neither
the Crown nor the accused indicated availability earlier than
November 13, 2012.
 At a judicial pre-trial on July 24, 2012, Gopie’s counsel
advised that he had inadvertently double-booked the scheduled
November 13, 2012 trial date. The trial date was, therefore,
vacated. That day, the appellants also advised that they would
bring a s. 11(b) application. The application was scheduled to be
heard on the court’s first available date of December 3, 2012.
Three days were also selected for other pre-trial motions, beginning on January 7, 2013. The appellants did not have a clear
six-week time period for trial before February 4, 2013, so the
trial was scheduled to begin on February 6, 2013.
 On November 5, 2012, the appellants abandoned their
s. 11(b) application which had been scheduled for December 3,
2012. They gave no reason for abandoning it.
 At a judicial pre-trial in January 2013, counsel for the
co-accused Gittens advised that, due to his March break vacation, he could not continue the trial if a verdict was not reached
prior to March 14, 2013. The issue of re-election was discussed.
Gittens confirmed she wanted a trial by judge and jury.
 The pre-trial motions that had been scheduled to begin
on January 7, 2013, were adjourned to February 6, 2013.
On that date, the Crown advised that she had just received the
accuseds’ motion materials that morning and sought a five-day
adjournment to respond. The matter was adjourned to February 11, 2013.
 On February 11, 2013, the Crown sought and was granted
an adjournment because a key police witness on the motions was
unavailable. The Crown had agreed, following the preliminary
inquiry, to have this witness available for examination for discovery. However, efforts to make those arrangements had failed. The
pre-trial motions were rescheduled to February 22, 2013.
 On February 22, 2013, the police officer was again not
available. The matter was adjourned to March 1, 2013, as a