Court File and Parties
Court File No.: Brampton – 15-574-00 Date: 2015-03-04 Ontario Court of Justice (Central West Region)
Between: Her Majesty the Queen
- and - Shane Fortuin
Counsel:
- M. Basso, Counsel for the Crown
- A. Rivard, Counsel for Mr. Fortuin
Heard: March 3, 2015
Ruling on Use of Restraints in the Courtroom
Justice P.A. Schreck:
Background
1Shane Fortuin pleaded guilty to one count of theft under $5000 and one count of failing to comply with a probation order and received a suspended sentence and probation. At the time of his plea, Mr. Fortuin was in custody as his surety had withdrawn a few days earlier. Mr. Fortuin was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs and the handcuffs remained on after he was placed in the prisoner's dock. I inquired whether there was any reason why restraints were required and, having been informed that there were none, I ordered that they be removed. Because there appears to be a practice, if not a policy, in Brampton that all accused persons in custody be handcuffed while in the prisoner's dock, I thought it appropriate for me to explain my reasons for making the order.
Legal Principles
2In R. v. McNeill (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the longstanding principle that there is a presumption that accused persons appearing in court should not be restrained unless the need for restraints has been justified by the Crown. In doing so, the Court relied on the decision in R. v. Cambridge Justices, Ex parte Peacock (1992), 156 J.P.R. 895 (Q.B.), at p. 902 (at para. 4):
They [Magistrates], not the gaoler, must decide whether a prisoner should be handcuffed in court. No prisoner should be handcuffed in court unless there are reasonable grounds for the apprehending that he will be violent or will attempt to escape. If an application is made that a prisoner should be handcuffed, the magistrates must entertain it.
See also R. v. Wills, [2006] O.J. No. 3662 (S.C.J.) at para. 45; R. v. Zwezdaryk, [2004] O.J. No. 6137 (S.C.J.) at para. 14; R. v. Jones (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 294 (Gen. Div.) at paras. 28-31.
3If the Crown takes the position that restraints are necessary, it bears the onus of establishing reasonable grounds for their use: R. v. Wills, supra at para. 45.
4The presumption that accused persons should appear in court unrestrained is well established. The Court in R. v. Cambridge Justices cites authority from as long ago as 1726. The same principle has been recognized in the United States: Holbrook v. Finn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) at pp. 568-569; Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 347 (1970) at p. 344.
Application and Conclusion
5R. v. McNeill represents the law in Ontario and is binding on this Court. It is not subject to the practices or policies of local court security personnel. The practice in this jurisdiction of keeping all in-custody accused in handcuffs unless and until an order is made to remove them is, in my view, contrary to law and should be discontinued. This is not the first time this view has been expressed in this jurisdiction: see R. v. Smith, [1996] O.J. No. 3671 (Prov. Div.). It is my understanding that handcuffs are routinely removed from in-custody accused in some other jurisdictions.
6In my view, when accused persons are brought into the courtroom, handcuffs should be removed as soon as they are placed into the dock unless the court officers are aware of a security concern respecting that particular accused. If that is the case, the officers should notify Crown counsel, preferably in advance, so that he or she may make the appropriate application before the presiding judge.
Released: March 4, 2015 Justice P.A. Schreck
