R. v. A.C., 2015 ONSC 413
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: R. v. A.C.
BEFORE: Ray, J.
COUNSEL: Lisa Miles. Counsel, for the Crown
Michael Johnston, Counsel, for the defendant
HEARD: January 19, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
1At the opening of trial the issue of where the accused would sit during the trial was raised. I gave very brief oral reasons and ordered that the defendant sit in the prisoner’s dock. I said I would expand those reasons in writing.
2The defendant is not in custody. I am satisfied that he poses no security risk. The defendant is ordered to sit in the prisoner’s dock during the trial. As has so often has been held, whether or not the accused is in custody, a ruling on the place where the accused may sit during the course of a trial is a matter for the trial judge’s discretion.
3There is no more prejudice to the defendant from sitting in the prisoner’s dock than there is in reading the indictment and arraigning him in front of the jury. To routinely permit an accused person to sit at the counsel table or in the body of the court where there are no security concerns has the serious potential of implying to the observer that those ordered to sit in the prisoner’s dock are more likely guilty of something. Whereas if the general practice, as is the case in Ottawa, is for the defendant to sit in the prisoner’s dock in serious cases then the likelihood of an improper or unfair inference is reduced. This is a serious case.
4The jury was and will be instructed on the presumption of innocence as against the defendant. They have been instructed that the prisoner’s dock is where an accused sits during a trial whether or not he is in custody. In fact the jury would have observed the defendant standing beside his counsel near the counsel table during the jury selection process. I adopt the reasoning of Rutherford, J., in R v Sidiqui.1
Honourable Justice Timothy Ray
Date: January 20, 2015
Footnotes
- R v Sadiqi, [2009] O.J. No. 2974; (2009), 2009 37350 (ON SC), 68 C.R. (6th) 346 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at paragraph 24.