The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during their trial.
The Crown opposed the motion, arguing for the traditional placement in the dock due to security concerns and to allow the jury a better view for identification purposes.
The court reviewed the conflicting jurisprudence on the issue and concluded that there is no presumption regarding an accused's placement.
Applying a case-by-case analysis based on fair trial interests and courtroom security, the court found that sitting at counsel table enhances communication with counsel and avoids the risk of prejudice associated with the dock.
Given the accused's good behaviour during prior court appearances and the lack of specific security risks, the motion was granted.