D. S. Allison

This addendum to a bail review endorsement clarifies that Crown counsel cannot cross-examine sureties about admissions made by the accused regarding the alleged offence.

The court found such questioning improper as it constitutes an unfair exploitation of the bail hearing for discovery purposes, infringes upon the accused's right against self-incrimination, and is largely extraneous to the bail decision.

The practice is detrimental to the accused-surety relationship and wasteful of judicial resources.

The applicant, a young person charged with three bank robberies and subsequent bail breaches, sought a review of his detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the proposal of two new, highly suitable sureties constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that the previous judge's reliance on the unsuitability of the applicant's parents as sureties heavily influenced the initial detention order.

Upon conducting a de novo review of the secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the court concluded that the strict house arrest plan with the new sureties reduced the risk to a manageable level.

The detention order was vacated and the applicant was released on bail.