Joshua A. Clarke

The applicant, convicted of serious sexual offences against a child in foster care, applied for bail pending appeal of his conviction.

The Court of Appeal considered the three criteria under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal is not frivolous, whether the applicant will surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

While the first two criteria were met or conceded, the court focused on public confidence in the administration of justice, balancing the public interest in reviewability against enforceability.

Given the gravity of the offences, the aggravated circumstances, the lengthy sentence, and the weakness of the grounds of appeal (which did not "clearly surpass" the not frivolous standard), the court found that the interest in immediate enforcement outweighed the interest in release.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

Three young men with no prior criminal records pleaded guilty to break, enter and commit assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offenders broke into the residence of a drug dealer who had previously beaten and left for dead a friend of theirs.

The break-in involved multiple attempts to gain entry and ultimately using a truck to destroy patio doors.

Once inside, the victim was assaulted, suffering minor injuries.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought twelve to eighteen months plus probation.

The court imposed ninety days in jail followed by two years of probation, with community service orders and a ten-year weapon prohibition.

The judge distinguished the case from typical home invasion cases, emphasizing the offenders' youth, lack of criminal records, genuine remorse, stable employment, family support, and the victim's criminal background.