2 total
Bail denied for accused facing firearms charges due to inadequate surety plan lacking combined financial and supervisory components.
The accused, charged with multiple serious firearms offences and breaches of recognizance, sought judicial interim release.
Due to the nature of the charges, the accused faced a reverse onus.
The court evaluated the proposed release plan, which involved two sureties: one providing funds but no supervision, and the other providing supervision but no funds.
The court found the plan inadequate, as the financial and supervisory components did not co-exist, failing to reduce the secondary ground concerns to an acceptable level.
The accused was ordered detained in custody.
The court denied bail to an accused facing serious firearms charges because the proposed surety plan lacked co-existing financial and supervisory components.
The accused sought judicial interim release following his arrest on serious firearms-related charges, including carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm for committing an offence, pointing a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.
The Crown opposed release.
The court found that while the Crown's case had some evidentiary weaknesses, the surveillance video evidence was strong and clear.
The proposed release plan was found to be inadequate because the financial and supervisory components did not co-exist: one surety pledged significant funds but could not supervise, while the residential surety could supervise but pledged virtually no funds.
The court held that the accused failed to meet the reverse onus on the secondary ground and ordered detention.
