CANADA’S NEW GOVERNMENT TACKLES GUN CRIME BY INTRODUCING BAIL REFORM A

[FTA Lawyer]

Whitedoors,

Check back a few posts, I already said that reverse onus on bail has passed Charter scrutiny (for other scenarios) so it is not likely as contentious as some people here first thought.

As for my example of waiting in jail 12 months for a 6 month sentence, I was just giving a general example of why the presumption of innocence is dependent on the default being a right to reasonable bail...I didn't mean to suggest that "serious gun offences" only attract such low sentences.

Hydraboss,

The seriousness of the charge is always a factor in any bail decision but charges are still just charges. If the Crown puts forward no evidence whatsoever as to identity of a shooter on a bail hearing, then that person should not be held in custody just because the charge is serious.

In the normal test, if the Crown can demonstrate a likelihood that an accused person will fail to attend court, will commit another offence if released, or that the public interest cannot be protected whilst the person is on bail, then bail will be denied.

Wilber,

See my comment above re: the 6-month sentence example. Sorry if I caused confusion with the numbers I chose.

FTA

[Charles Anthony]

In the normal test, if the Crown can demonstrate a likelihood that an accused person will fail to attend court, will commit another offence if released, or that the public interest cannot be protected whilst the person is on bail, then bail will be denied.

This is interesting.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

The whole concept of being held on bail flies in its face.

[White Doors]

Whitedoors,

Check back a few posts, I already said that reverse onus on bail has passed Charter scrutiny (for other scenarios) so it is not likely as contentious as some people here first thought.

As for my example of waiting in jail 12 months for a 6 month sentence, I was just giving a general example of why the presumption of innocence is dependent on the default being a right to reasonable bail...I didn't mean to suggest that "serious gun offences" only attract such low sentences.

very good, missed that - thanks.

[FTA Lawyer]

In the normal test, if the Crown can demonstrate a likelihood that an accused person will fail to attend court, will commit another offence if released, or that the public interest cannot be protected whilst the person is on bail, then bail will be denied.

This is interesting.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

The whole concept of being held on bail flies in its face.

Forgive me when I say that your comment appears to come from way out in left field. What I've been trying to point out is that the default position for someone charged with a crime is that they will be released on bail. This must be the default in order to protect the value of the presumption of innocence.

That being said, the state must be permitted a reasonable opportunity to prosecute alleged offences...and to do that, they must have jurisdiction over the individual. If the Crown can prove that there is a likelihood that the person will flee and not attend court (previous fail to appear convictions, previous breaches of probation or other court orders) then bail can properly be denied.

Similarly, the public interest in not being subjected to further crimes by the same accused person must also be given reasonable consideration. If letting an accused out on bail is akin to creating another victim or will generate such disdain for the justice system as a whole then, again, bail can properly be denied.

Your concern for the effects of denial of bail on the presumption of innocence are well-founded, but as with any right, the right to reasonable bail is a qualified one...there must always be a balance as between the rights of the individual and those of the society as a group.

It is also worth pointing out that the Criminal Code provides for appeals of bail decisions, re-consideration of bail if the accused can demonstrate a "change in circumstances" from when they were ordered detained, and automatic bail reviews due to the passage of time to ensure that continued detention is not unjust.

FTA

[Charles Anthony]

Forgive me when I say that your comment appears to come from way out in left field. What I've been trying to point out is that the default position for someone charged with a crime is that they will be released on bail.

No offense taken and in retrospect, my comment was unnecessary in this thread. Call me "annoying" if you will.

the right to reasonable bail is a qualified one...there must always be a balance as between the rights of the individual and those of the society as a group.

I understand this is the basis behind the concept of bail.

My belief in freedom is extremely religious and I have difficulty personifying "society as a group" in the least.

Thus, my presumption of innocence is equally extreme -- although, I accept that it is unpopular.

I find it odd that the logic which permits "society as a group" to have such power over every single individual does not also lead us (members of "society as a group") to look at things differently and say: we are owed protection BEFORE we bcome victims of crime. Why not demand the power of "society as a group" to protect us with as much fervor and righteousness as we expect it to mete out justice?