Call it a case of "Wong-doing".

In what is a dubious judicial precedent for B.C., a Vancouver provincial court judge has put the brakes on a drunk driving trial after the expert witness hired by the accused also helped the crown develop their case.

In ordering a judicial stay of proceedings against accused Dilipkumar Darji, which means the crown cannot relay the charges, provincial court judge F.E. Howard ruled that the integrity of the justice system would be undermined if the trial were to proceed.

The effectiveness of our justice system requires that "there be an unqualified perception of fairness in the eyes of the general public," he ruled on June 22.

The case went to court after Darji was detained by police in January 2003 for impaired driving and driving over .08.

He then hired defence counsel Perry Kuchar who retained Benny Wong of B & B Forensic Alcohol Consultants Inc. for an expert opinion.

As Kuchar prepared for the trial, Wong provided him with a preliminary expert report which formed the basis of Darji's defence.

Kuchar also discussed with Wong defence strategies and tactics to be used at trial which was scheduled for March 29, 2004.

About three weeks after he agreed to help in the defence of Darji, Wong told Kuchar he could not testify as an expert witness because he was going to work for the Toxicology section of the RCMP's Forensic Laboratory Services in Vancouver.

Among the first jobs that landed on his desk was the Darji file.

Wong, who had helped the defence prepare for the case now prepared a five page Forensic Analysis Opinion for the crown.

Kuchar realized that Wong the expert witness he had used was now working for crown when he received a copy of Forensic Analysis Opinion.

Wong realizing his mistake in a letter said "I confirm that when I prepared the report on this matter on February 7, 2004 on behalf of the R.C.M.P., I had no recollection of consulting with defence counsel on this matter previously. If I had realized my previous involvement in the matter, I would certainly have declined further involvement in the matter."

Kuchar tried to persuade the crown that his client would not get a fair trial because of the conflict of interest but the crown insisted on proceeding with the case.

"I don't think she (crown counsel) understood that my client could not get a fair trial because of the conflict," Kuchar told The Asian Pacific Post.

The crown's contention was that they would not be calling Wong as an expert witness and that he did not pass any confidential information about the accused to the prosecution.

"There was nothing like this case in the criminal context" said Kuchar adding "the judge did the right thing,"

Kuchar said that he has not been notified by the crown about any intention of appealing the decision. The crown, it is understood, is taking steps to prevent a recurrence.