Less than a year after the Supreme Court of Canada’s explosive Jordan decision — which set strict limits on the lengths of criminal trials between charge and verdict — the court has not backed down from its benchmarks on just how fast courts should move cases though the criminal justice system in order to avoid automatic stays that let accused criminals walk away free.

In a short and unanimous decision issued Friday, the court declared the precedent it had set in its Jordan ruling last July must stand. It acknowledged that a number of provincial attorneys general have asked for more flexibility in the Jordan framework, but insisted today in its ruling in the case of James Cody — a Newfoundland man hit with drug charges in 2010 — that the Jordan limits aren’t going anywhere:

“Like any of this court’s precedents, it must be followed and it cannot be lightly discarded or overruled.”

Michael Crystal, Cody’s lawyer, spoke to reporters in the Supreme Court foyer after the ruling came down. “As I said in my submissions to this court, defence lawyers and prosecutors are going to have to abandon our silos and start talking about how these trials are going move forward in an expeditious time,” he said. “It may require a bit a of culture change for defence lawyers.”

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin did not participate in today’s decision, although she was one of the four minority judges last year who disagreed with the Jordan ruling. Also missing was Justice Thomas Cromwell, who retired in the period between the Jordan and Cody cases. He had written that the Jordan time limits were not only “unwise”, but “wrong.”

Nonetheless, Justices Richard Wagner and Clemont Gascon — who were also in the minority for Jordan — joined their colleagues for Cody in a united front. Like any legal officer, they too are bound by the court’s precedents.

In extraordinary cases the court can overturn its own precedents, as it did with assisted death. But it does not do so lightly — and not after only a year has passed.

The Cody decision comes from “the court” with no one judge taking authorship for writing the decision. “This appeal is yet another example of why change is necessary,” the court wrote. “From the time … Cody was charged with drugs and weapons offences until his five-day trial was scheduled to begin, five years had passed.”

In the case of Barret Jordan — the subject of last year’s top court ruling, a B.C. dial-a-dope drug dealer whose court proceedings spooled out over years — the original trial judge’s decision to throw out his charges was upheld.

At the same time, the court issued an ultimatum to all lower courts: The time between a charge and the end of any trial could be no longer than 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court — or an automatic stay, a get-out-of jail-free card, would result for the accused. These became known as the Jordan time limits.

The consequences of that split 5-4 decision in the top court have resonated throughout the year.

Three accused murderers have seen their cases thrown out, and lawyers across the country have been preparing for applications for hundreds of stays.

“The seriousness or gravity of the offence cannot be relied on, nor can institutional delay,” as excuses for skirting the time limits, said the co-writers of the Jordan majority decision — Justices Micheal Moldaver, Russell Brown and Andromache Karakatsanis.

In the Cody case, the court took note that the trial judge said Cody had suffered prejudice due to delays; he suffered mental distress and lost his job because bail conditions didn’t allow him to travel.

The stays due to the Jordan ruling, now upheld in the Cody decision, were addressed in a report released Wednesday by the Senate’s legal committee.

Taking direct aim at the Jordan time limits, the Senate report asked that its recommendations for alternate remedies to stays — such as reduced sentences to compensate the accused and the awarding of costs in cases of unreasonable delays — be referred to the top court to confirm their constitutionality.

Not mincing words, the report concluded that stays for crimes such as murder and child sexual assault “shock the conscience of the Canadian community and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

Crystal said the Senate report’s suggestion of shorter sentences for defendants whose trials have gone over the time limit “presumes someone is guilty.

“What about all the innocent people who are waiting for trials? A shorter sentence is cold comfort for someone who’s innocent.”

Awarding costs to defendants in delayed cases, he said, would put “a chill onto the prosecution. If there’s cost awards against the Crown, it just cripples our resources.”

Cody presented a chance for the top court to re-examine its Jordan decision, which has been described as a “game-changer” and like “dropping a bomb on the legal profession” by some legal observers. But it was not to be.

In Cody’s case, 60.5 months had gone by from the time he was charged in drug-smuggling ring that encompassed both N.L. and B.C. He waived 13 months, and an additional 3.5 months were deducted when he fired one of his lawyers, and another lawyer he hired was appointed a judge.

More time was deducted due to a error in an agreed statement of facts. Mistakes happen, the court acknowledged, and count as a discrete event that can be deducted from the total time.

A frivolous defence request will be not be counted as time lost — as in Cody’s case, when he accused the judge of bias and tried to have him recuse himself from hearing the trial.

“Accused persons must bear in mind that … the right ‘to be tried within a reasonable time’ is the responsibility to avoid causing unreasonable delay,” said the court. This may ease the minds of some who worry about anecdotal reports that lawyers are beginning to search for ways to delay trial proceedings

After all deductions, Cody was left with a 36.5 months-long legal proceeding, still above the 30 month limit set in Jordan. Despite a public outcry in some quarters and political pressure, the highest court has spoken, and this time, it has spoken with one voice.