In the Canadian criminal justice system, bail suffices for purposes of releasing the accused while still on trial. The accused is afforded an opportunity out of detention at least until he is proven guilty, proof which has to be beyond reasonable doubts. It is in appreciation of the role of bail and the courts that confer the same thereof that I visited the said courts. On November 20th 2013 I visited a bail court as part of my class assignment to examine cases of accused being processed through a bail hearing. The bail court I visited was City Hall on Queen St West, downtown. It was court room number 114. I was at the court room by 11:55 a.m.
The court room was very small. It had around 20 people in it. The court room was set up in such a way that showed who the different participants were. There was the area for the judge and the court official, the section for the counsels, the dock for the accused person and the general area where the public could seat. This is the typical court arrangement for purposes of bail hearing.
The participants in the bail hearing were the judge who obviously presides over the hearing, the court clerks who do the clerical and administrative work in the court, the accused person, police officers who were guarding the accused person, the crown and the defence counsel. It was a busy day in the court and there were many other offenders in the court. The judge was sitting in the middle of the court and before him were three female clerks. The accused was standing on my left side surrounded by a glass window and standing with him was a police officer. Another police officer was seated on a chair not far away from where the accused was. The crown was standing on the right side of the court and the defence counsel was sitting on my left side.
Before the hearing began, there was talking and discussions in the court. There was tension and anxiety in the court. When the court was in session it was really quiet. There was a lot of paper work and the clerks, judge, the defence counsel and the crown counsel seem to be doing a lot of recording. Negotiations and proposals were being made by the participants once the court was in session. The back and forth negotiations sets in process the hearing of the bail applications.
The bail hearing I witnessed was for 52 year old Brian Stevenson who was accused of the offence of assault near the subway station. The case did not have a reverse onus since it was not an indictable offence which is provided for under S 469CC. Since the offence was not one provided for under S 515(6) CC, the crown had to show cause. This means that the onus was on the crown to show cause why the accused should not be released on bail, and not the converse, that is the accused showing cause why he should be released.
The crown objected to the release of the accused both on the primary ground and the secondary ground. On the primary ground, the crown stated that the accused did not have an employment and that he did not have a stable housing. It was also brought forth by the crown that the accused did not have stable roots in the community hence he should not be released. S 515(10)(a) provides for the primary grounds of objection to the release of an accused person, it seeks to establish whether the accused has roots in the community so that the same could be used to gauge whether the accused would appear for trial. The accused stated that he had signed with the community treatment centre and he was willing to cooperate with the court. Another primary ground on which the crown objected to the release of the accused was that the accused was having trouble with his father and that there was evidence from Dr Possel, who was the accused’s doctor, saying that although the accused was on medication, he was having difficulties.
The secondary grounds on which the crown objected was that, there were complaints that the accused was causing disturbance. This is in line with S515 (10) (b) which seeks to find out whether the accused is likely to commit the offence again and whether he is a danger to the public. In his self defence the accused stated that at the time he committed the offence he was off medication but he was now doing okay. Some of the evidence provided for in this case is that of the crown which adduced the doctor’s opinion on the accused, the evidence that the accused is unemployed, has no housing and has no roots in the community. Additional evidence provided in this case is that of the accused stating that he had not taken his medication on the day he committed the offence. The judge came to a conclusion that since there was not enough evidence for detaining the accused, he should be released. This is in line with the criminal code which states that bail hearing is on a balance of probabilities.
The accused was released on certain conditions which are that he would pay a 500 dollar fine, he would follow the treatment plan, he would seek employment, he would go to school, he would stay 250m away from Rosedale Subway Station except when he is passing by, he would have no contact with Kathrine Devion, he would have no contact with a weapon and that he would stay in the shelter. If he does not follow the bail program, the charges would be laid. This is in line with S 515(4) CC which states that the judge has the discretion as to what the conditions for the release of the accused are.
Initially, the crown did not agree to the release of the accused but it did eventually manage to convince the court on restrictive release conditions. It demonstrated to the court that the accused did not have an employment, housing and roots in the community hence should not qualify for bail and that the accused had a history of creating disturbance. This led to the court laying down strict release conditions which are aimed to help the accused and protect the community.
I did not agree with the outcome of this case because I believe the accused is a danger to the community and hence he should not be released on bail and that from the circumstances of the case, the accused has a high probability of repeating the offence. However, the rule of law observes that parties to legal disputes and agreements should observe the outcomes and respect the institution of the courts in their administration of justice.
References
Boyd, N. (2010). Canadian Law: An Introduction. Ontario: Cengage Learning.
Clarke, S. (2012). A Treatise on the Criminal Law of Canada. Toronto: Nabu Press.
Government of Canada. (2013, November 16). Canadian Criminal Code. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from Justice Laws Website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-1.html
Grossman, M. (2011). Criminal Justice in Canada. Ontario: Cengage Learning.
Heller, K. (2010). The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Herminda, J. (2012). Criminal Law in Canada. Vancouver: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Herring, J. (2011). Criminal Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Proulx, M., & Layton, D. (n.d.). Ethics and Canadian criminal law. Toronto: Irwin Law.
Simon, P. (2009). Canadian Criminal Cases. Toronto: Cengage Learning.
Treamear, J. (2009). Canadian Criminal Cases Annotated; Series of Reports of Important Decisions in Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Cases in Canada. Vancouver: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Westhues, A. (2006). Canadian Social Policy: Issues And Perspectives. Toronto: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
