Appeal of convicted murderer rejected as 'incoherent'

The P.E.I. Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Barry Bradley, who was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his wife in Charlottetown in July 2001.

Bradley prepared his own appeal, which the judge described as "very incoherent."

'There was abundant evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions.' Chief Justice Gerard Mitchell

"There is nothing in any of the material before the court to indicate that an appeal would have any merit or any chance of success if it did proceed," wroteChief Justice Gerard Mitchell, in a decision released Wednesday.

"I have read the entire transcript of the trial proceedings and as a result am satisfied there was abundant evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and ultimately the guilty verdict."

After he was charged, Bradley tried to plead guilty to second-degree murder, but the Crown rejected his offer. The case went to trial in October 2002. Justice Gordon Campbell found Bradley guilty of first-degree murder because the killing was planned and deliberate, and also because it was committed while Bradley was stalking Holmes.

It was the first conviction in Canada usinga new section of the law that defined stalking as grounds for a finding of first-degree murder.

Bradley was sentenced to life in prison without eligibility of parole for 25 years.

Difficulty finding a lawyer

The lawyer who represented him at trial, Joel Pink, didn't think Bradley had any grounds for appeal, so Bradley decided to file his own appeal from prison. He's appeared in court several times since then, largely arguing that the Crown didn't disclose all the evidence against him.

Bradley wanted to hire his own lawyer, but for legal aid to cover the costs a lawyer had to agree in writing that the case had some merit. Bradley did not find a lawyer willing to do that.

The court appointed a lawyer, Jim Hornby, to help Bradley prepare his own appeal. Hornby said he'd discussed some options for grounds of appeal with Bradley, but Bradley didn't agree to them. Hornby asked to be excused from his appointment as Bradley's lawyer because they couldn't communicate effectively.

Justice Mitchell wrote Bradley's appeal was "very incoherent and contained no clear grounds of appeal."

It has been 4 years since Bradley filed his appeal, and three years since counsel was appointed for him.

"The delay in prosecuting the appeal has been extraordinary," wrote Mitchell.

"Mr. Bradley has had more than enough time to file a revised notice of appeal and factum but he has done neither and he has not applied for any extensions of time for doing so."

Mitchell concluded he was not able to find any error of law that might result in a reversal of Bradley's conviction.