On Thursday, a group of protestors gathered outside an Ottawa courthouse to demonstrate against the freeing of Adam Picard. In 2012, Picard was charged with murder in the shooting death of 28-year-old Fouad Nayel.

An Ontario Superior Court judge ordered a stay in the case on Tuesday. She found that Picard's nearly four year wait for trial was a violation of the Supreme Court's new limit on unreasonable delays.

Fouad's mother, Nicole Nayel, led the protest against the decision and spoke with As It Happens guest host Helen Mann about why she thinks the justice system failed her family. Here is part of their conversation.

Image | Ottawa courthouse protest Elgin Street Fouad Nayel trial delays Nov. 17 2016

Caption: Supporters of Nayel family hold placards during a protest outside the Ottawa courthouse on Nov. 17, 2016, days after an Ottawa judge stayed a first-degree murder charge against Adam Picard. (Andrew Foote/CBC)

Load Image

Helen Mann: Nicole Nayel, what message were you hoping to deliver outside the courthouse today?

Nicole Nayel: Well, I felt we've been betrayed by the system — justice wasn't served. I'd like to tell everyone to wake up and see what's happening with the legal system because justice hasn't been served.

HM: You and your husband had actually been hoping to see something else happen in court this week. What did you think would happen?

NN: We were waiting to pick a jury selection. We were supposed to be in a trial. I waited four years to go to trial. I counted the days, counted the moments, just to see justice. But I get to the courtroom, we didn't pick the jury. We got the decision that the accused murderer is to get out. I felt everything crash right in front of my face. Everything that we worked for, for four years. All the pain that this guy caused us it went down like it's nothing. Victims, they have no rights. The judge was talking, everything about the accused. But never mentioned, how about the victims? We got double punished for something we didn't do.

Media Video | CBC News: Ottawa at 6:00 : Fouad Nayel murder suspect appears in court

Caption: Adam Picard was formally charged with first degree murder, appearing for the proceedings via video link.

Open Full Embed in New Tab Loading external pages may require significantly more data usage.

HM: Did you think this might even be a possibility? Had anyone prepared you for the idea that because the trial had taken so long the case might be put aside?

NN: Not really, no. We had a very, very strong case. No matter what the situation, we were two days away from starting the trial. Why didn't we allow the jury to decide if this guy was guilty or not guilty? It's not like we had to wait another six or seven months. We were two days away.

HM: What have you been told by the Crown and the police about why it has taken so long to get this case to trial?

NN: Well, to be honest with you, the accused played the system very well. He fired three lawyers before he had his last lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon. With the complications of the case, with every lawyer that came aboard, we had to wait a couple months just for them to look through everything.

Image | si-ottawa-picard

Caption: Adam Picard, 29, had been charged with first-degree murder in the death of Fouad Nayel. (CBC News)

Load Image

HM: So you accuse Mr. Picard with gaming the system but who do you hold most responsible for getting to this point?

NN: The system — the whole system is corrupt. You don't know how many times we get to the courtroom and they have technical problems or the courtroom wasn't available. There's always problems. Other times we get there and the defence wasn't ready with his papers. There's always a lot of issues there and that delays all the time.



HM: What have the police, who obviously investigated this case and were close to it as well, and the Crown — what have they said to you?

NN: They weren't happy. They were very, very upset and that's the reason why they are appealing this decision. The Crown prepared 500 pages for the judge that same morning. We get to the courtroom and she didn't even get them a chance to say anything. All she said was the decision was made and she sent it electronically. Going through the court system, every time there was a decision made the judge would take the time to read the decision. I find myself as a victim, it was disrespectful for us that she sent it electronically. So we don't count here or what? Do we have to hear it from someone else? I want to hear it from the judge herself.

Image | Amine and Nicole Nayel

Caption: Amine and Nicole Nayel had waited four years for the trial of a man charged with first-degree murder in the death of their son. On Tuesday, a judge ruled the time was unreasonable and stayed the charges. (Simon Gardner/CBC)

Load Image

HM: Do you think that Justice Julianne Parfett had any choice though given the Supreme Court had imposed this 30 month rule on serious crimes?

NN: I think she had a choice. Why would she have to pick a case that was so severe to prove her point?

HM: The court did say cases including murder would be included in this 30 month rule though. They said there was a culture of complacency in the criminal justice system.

NN: Yes but we were two days away from the trial — two days away. Why did she have to pick our case? Why? What bothers me most is what's going to happen next? How many accused killers are going to be walking down the street?

Nicole Nayel says the Crown is going to appeal. For more on this story, listen to the full interview.