Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2014-06-27

Court File No.: Guelph 13-1526; 13-1582; 13-1911

Parties

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

Patrece Ameena Lall

Hearing Details

Before: Justice of the Peace Thomas Stinson

Heard on: June 23, 2014

Reasons for Judgment released on: June 27, 2014

Counsel:

• Sandy Di Martino, counsel for the Crown
• Paul Aubin, counsel for the accused Patrece Lall

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STINSON:

Background and Chronology

[1] Patrece Lall is before the court attempting to be released on bail. At its simplest, she is here because on June 16, 2014, Cecile Kerridge, an existing surety for Ms. Lall, had applied for relief as a surety. An order for committal for the arrest of Ms. Lall was issued by a justice of the peace. Ms. Kerridge has had a change of heart, and is once again willing to act as a surety for Ms. Lall.

[2] However, the situation is slightly more complicated than that, and a brief review of the chronology of events that bring Ms. Lall to this court today is necessary.

[3] On August 23, 2013, after a contested bail hearing, Ms. Lall was released by His Worship Justice of the Peace Rojek on a recognizance of bail in the amount of $30,000. This recognizance dealt with 39 criminal charges that Ms. Lall was facing, including multiple charges for robbery with a firearm, forcible confinement, conspiracy to commit other indictable offences, careless use or storage of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing possession was unauthorized, possession of a prohibited device, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition, possession of property not exceeding $5,000 and one count of altering, defacing or removing the serial number of a firearm.

[4] These charges resulted from allegations that Ms. Lall was involved in armed robberies in Aurora on May 14, 2013 and in Guelph on June 16, 2013. As well, charges against Ms. Lall arose from weapons and property found as a result of the execution of a search warrant at Ms. Lall's residence on August 12, 2013.

[5] This recognizance on which Ms. Lall was released had three sureties. These were Ms. Kerridge, Augustina Takyiway and Derek Lall, Ms. Lall's father. Each signed in the amount of $30,000. The terms included, among others:

1. No contact with her co-accused, Mark Harrison and Nakeem Johnson
2. No contact with a variety of named individuals who were employees in the stores alleged to have been robbed
3. Not to attend at any Black's Photography or Source store in Ontario
4. A 24 hour curfew except for court appearances, medical emergencies or in the presence of one of her sureties
5. No weapons
6. No cellphones
7. A requirement that she live either at her parents' address on Jane Street West in Toronto, or as directed by Ms. Kerridge

[6] On October 30, 2013, after another contested bail hearing, this time in front of His Worship Justice of the Peace Cuthbertson, Ms. Lall was released on another recognizance of bail by Her Worship Justice of the Peace Rodney. This recognizance was also in the amount of $30,000. This recognizance was for another twenty charges faced by Ms. Lall, including multiple counts of robbery with a firearm, forcible confinement, disguise with intent and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

[7] These charges resulted from allegations that Ms. Lall was involved in armed robberies in Guelph on December 5, 2012, in Bradford on January 10, 2013, in Brantford on January 14, 2013, in Peterborough on March 6, 2013, and in Mississauga on August 7, 2013.

[8] This second recognizance on which Ms. Lall was released had only one surety, Ms. Kerridge, who again signed in the amount of $30,000. The terms of this release were relatively similar to those of the earlier recognizance. However, it added a no contact provision with another co-accused on this information, Nathan Okoko and required Ms. Lall to reside with Ms. Kerridge at her address of 84 Maddybeth Crescent, Brampton. While this residence term was not identical to that of the August recognizance, they were not inherently contradictory. The court is satisfied with Ms. Kerridge's evidence that, pursuant to the first recognizance, she directed Ms. Lall to reside with her.

[9] On May 13, 2014, this second recognizance was varied by Her Worship Justice of the Peace Magoulas, with the consent of the Crown Attorney. It added Ms. Lall's mother, Pearline Lall as a surety, and amended Ms. Lall's residence term to read that she reside at her mother's address of 2999 Jane Street, Apartment #204, Toronto, Ontario. Again, this amendment to the residence term of the second recognizance would not inherently contradict the August recognizance, as in fact this was the very address mentioned as Ms. Lall's address on it.

[10] The catalyst for varying this recognizance was apparently Pearline Lall's need for the accused to assist her in caring for the accused's child. As well, Derek Lall, the accused's father and Pearline Lall's husband – and one of Patrece Lall's sureties on the August recognizance – had apparently passed away in February 2014.

[11] I note, as an aside, that this death of one of the sureties appears to have gone unnoticed. I do not know at what point either the crown or defendant's counsel became aware of Derek Lall's death, but I would think that there would be some positive obligation on the part of either crown or defence counsel, as an officer of the court, to bring this development to the attention of the court. However, as Ms. Kerridge's application by surety for relief covers all informations dealing with both Ms. Lall's recognizances, this particular issue is no longer relevant.

[12] In retrospect, Ms. Kerridge now realizes that adding Ms. Lall's mother as a surety was probably not a good idea. During the weekend of June 14 – 15, 2014, barely a month after the variation, Ms. Lall is found, not in the presence of one of her sureties, in a motel room in Peel Region one night shortly after midnight. As indicated earlier, Ms. Kerridge, having been advised of this breach by police soon after it allegedly occurred, revokes as a surety on June 16, 2014, on her understanding that she is required to do so, if she becomes aware that the defendant has breached a term of her recognizances.

[13] Ms. Lall was arrested on charges of breaching the curfew term of each of her existing recognizances and held for a show cause hearing in Peel Region. She was released on a recognizance of bail, after what I understand to have been a contested hearing, in the amount of $2,000, with Ms. Kerridge as her only surety. The Peel hearing only dealt with these new charges.

[14] Ms. Lall, therefore, is back before this court, as mentioned earlier, only because Ms. Kerridge revoked as a surety for the Guelph recognizances.

Crown's Position and Reverse Onus

[15] The Crown again opposes her release, as I gather it had on prior occasions. The Crown also points out, correctly, that as Ms. Lall is now facing subsequent indictable charges, even though they are not before this court today, she is at this time in a reverse onus situation, pursuant to section 515(6)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code. The Crown also argues that the existence of these subsequent charges adds to their concerns on the secondary grounds, as outlined in section 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code. As well as the secondary grounds, the Crown also opposes Ms. Lall's release on the tertiary grounds, as set out in section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

Analysis of Tertiary Ground

[16] I will deal first with the tertiary ground. It deals with whether an accused's detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the strength of the prosecution's case, the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment for a term of three years or more.

[17] Each of these four enumerated grounds is present in the charges that Ms. Lall is facing. The crown's case, including the evidence of the result of the search warrant executed at Ms. Lall and Mr. Johnson's home, is quite strong. The offences with which she is charged are extremely serious, dealing with a series of armed robberies of defenceless store clerks. Now while in most of the incidents, Ms. Lall appears to have been the "getaway driver", in at least one of the robberies, she is alleged to have actively participated, brandishing a weapon and wearing a disguise. Firearms were used in all the robberies and Ms. Lall is clearly facing, if convicted of even some of the charges she is facing, a very lengthy time in custody.

[18] However, I must take into account that the tertiary ground either was, or certainly could have been, raised, by the crown, in either of Ms. Lall's previous bail hearings. After both those hearings, Ms. Lall was ordered released, and I have no indication that the crown sought a bail review of either decision.

[19] The only new development concerns the allegation of the breach of curfew. And, as pointed out earlier, it is only because of Ms. Kerridge's pulling bail on Ms. Lall that she is indeed back before this court. With respect, I cannot conclude that this new development tips Ms. Lall's situation into one in which the tertiary ground would come into play to the point of requiring her to remain in custody. In coming to this conclusion, the court takes into account the decisions of Corbett J. in R. v. Thomson (2004), 21 C.R. (6th) 209 (Ont.S.C.J.) and Ducharme, J. in R. v. B.(A.) (2006), 204 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont.S.C.J.) as well as the case of R. v. LaFramboise, (2005), 203 C.C.C. (3d) 492, cited by Mr. Aubin on behalf of his client, a decision of Cronk J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal in which Her Honour states her opinion, grounded in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Hall (2002), 2002 SCC 64, 167 C.C.C. (3d) 449, that section 515(10)(c) can only be used sparingly to deny bail.

Analysis of Secondary Ground

[20] With respect to its secondary ground concerns, the Crown obviously points to the new breach of recognizance charges that Ms. Lall is facing. What could be more relevant for a court to consider, when trying to determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that a defendant will, if released from custody, commit further offences, than the fact that the defendant is, indeed, now facing such charges? And it would appear, I would add, that the Crown has a very strong case with respect to these breach allegations.

[21] Ms. Kerridge, in her evidence to this court, effectively answered this question. She told the court that during the several months that Ms. Lall was living with her, Ms. Lall fully complied with the requirements of her bail. Ms. Kerridge advised the court that, during this time, Ms. Lall assisted in caring for Ms. Kerridge's child, was taking some online courses and, in preparing meals, was learning to cook. Ms. Kerridge also advised that either she or her own mother would always have been present in Ms. Kerridge's home with Ms. Lall.

[22] Even after Ms. Lall moved to her own mother's home last month, Ms. Kerridge advised that she made telephone contact with her every evening to ensure that she was properly in her home. She testified that she had even made such a call on the very evening where Ms. Lall was later found in the motel room.

[23] It is Ms. Kerridge's belief that Ms. Lall would not have been able to have committed the alleged breaches had she been required to remain resident in Ms. Kerridge's home. She wishes, again, to be given the opportunity to act as surety for Ms. Lall on these terms. She does not wish there to be any other sureties, and she wants to have sole responsibility and control over Ms. Lall's liberty. Ms. Kerridge specifically outlined her own professional work obligations over the next few months and confirmed that either she or her own mother would be present with Ms. Lall in Ms. Kerridge's home. She advised, as well, that her home is equipped with an alarm system for which Ms. Lall does not know the code. Therefore, if Ms. Lall attempts to leave Ms. Kerridge's home and does not input the correct code into the system, an alarm would sound and Ms. Kerridge would be immediately advised by the alarm company.

[24] Ms. Kerridge also advised the court that she is extremely disappointed in Ms. Lall if the breach allegations turn out to be true. She feels that Ms. Lall has seriously disrespected Ms. Kerridge. This does show to the court that Ms. Kerridge has taken, and would continue to take, her responsibilities as a surety very seriously. It also indicates that she is not wearing rose-coloured glasses with respect to Ms. Lall.

[25] Because it is very clear to this court that, if the breach allegations are true, and I repeat my comment that the Crown has a very strong case with respect to them, Ms. Lall cannot be trusted whatsoever. Her words and promises to this court clearly mean nothing. I fear that her words and promises to Ms. Kerridge may also mean nothing.

[26] However, Ms. Kerridge knows Ms. Lall well and she is prepared to allow her back into her home. I take this into account, as well as the fact that, as of yet, Ms. Lall has no criminal record whatsoever. I also take into account that, even though she is now in a reverse onus situation, Ms. Lall is entitled, as is every person, not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause, pursuant to section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Conclusion and Release Order

[27] I conclude that the bail plan presented to the court is indeed reasonable, as it appears to have succeeded for several months prior to Ms. Lall moving to her mother's residence. I also acknowledge the comments of A.M. Gans J. in R. v. Walton, [2005] O.J. No. 48, cited by counsel for the defendant, at paragraph 11, that "the test under subsection 515(10)(b) is not one of absolute certainty…but is one which admits of a reasonable management of risk, otherwise section 11(e) of the Charter would be rendered meaningless."

[28] Taking everything into consideration, therefore, I am prepared to order that Ms. Lall can be released on a new recognizance of bail, covering all the informations and all the charges that were previously the subject of both the August 23, 2013 recognizance and the October 30, 2013 recognizance, as varied on May 13, 2014.

[29] This recognizance will be in the amount of $30,000 on a without deposit basis, with Cecile Kerridge named as surety, also signing in the amount of $30,000 on a without deposit basis. The terms are as follows:

1. Reside with surety at 84 Maddybeth Crescent, Brampton, Ontario and be amenable to the routine and discipline of that residence.

2. Remain in your residence 24 hours per day, except a) for attending court, or b) unless you are in the presence of your surety.

3. Remain in Ontario.

4. Do not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with the following: Mark Anthony Hamilton, Nakeem Jamar Johnson, Nathan Okoko, Jasmine Prince, Brendan Paul Patterson, Derek Asselin, Christine Devries, Douglas Benton, Jennifer Moreira, Anthony Nguyen, Joyce Hartung, Andrew Scarangella, Melissa Zdriluk, Timothy Howey, Jordan Tozer, Meghan Stevens, Joshua Cutmore and Yousef Attia, except in the presence of legal counsel for the purpose of preparing a defence.

5. Do not be within 100 metres of any place where you know any of the persons named above to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know the persons to be except for required court appearances.

6. Do not attend at any Black's Photography, Source, Rogers, Bell, Telus or Mobilicity retail outlets in Ontario.

7. Do not possess a firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all those things until dealt with according to law.

8. Do not possess any cell phone, pager, personal digital assistant or wireless communication device.

Final Conditions

[30] Before Ms. Lall is released, however, I need to be satisfied that Ms. Kerridge fully understands the risk she is taking. While I am very impressed with her and have no doubts that she will do her utmost to ensure Ms. Lall's compliance with the order, I want to make certain that Ms. Kerridge understands that, by virtue of Ms. Lall's alleged breach of the curfew contained in both her previous recognizances, Ms. Kerridge and Ms. Lall both may already be potentially liable, if the crown seeks estreatment, to pay the amounts already pledged.

[31] If Ms. Kerridge understands this, and is still prepared to act as surety, I am content that Ms. Lall can be released, if there is no other reason for her to be in custody, once they have both signed the recognizance and counsel have agreed upon an appropriate return date.

Released: June 27, 2014

Signed: "Justice of the Peace Thomas Stinson"