SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 747-15
DATE: 20150731
RE: R. v. Douglas Bright
BEFORE: E.J. Koke
COUNSEL: Counsel, for the Crown, Natalie Boivin
Counsel for the Accused, Jason Forget
HEARD: July 27, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is an application by the Crown for a review under section 521 of the Criminal Code of a decision whereby the accused, Douglas Bright was granted judicial interim release by a Justice of the Peace.
[2] The Crown submits that the learned Justice erred in his assessment of the secondary and tertiary grounds, and that there is fresh evidence in support of its position that the accused should not be released from custody, pending trial.
The Charges
[3] The accused faces 7 charges in an indictment dated June 18, 2015. They consist of the following:
Procuring D.M. to become a prostitute (s. 212(2) (d) CCC);
Administering a noxious substance (s. 245(b) CCC);
Recruiting D.M. for the purpose of exploitation (s. 279.01(1) CCC);
Receiving a Material Benefit from the commission of an offence (s. 279.02 CCC);
Advertising sexual services of another person (s. 286.4 CCC);
Sexual Assault (s. 271 CCC);
Possession of stolen property under $5000 (s. 354 (12)(a) CCC).
[4] The Justice of the Peace summarized the charges as follows at page 54 of the transcript of the hearing before him:
At the outset, one can see that there is what appears to be mischief involved. The defendant is 45 years of age, while D.M. is only 19 years of age. These are matters – the issue of their relationship will have to be one that will be developed or inquired into at trial, but it appears that a relationship of some sort developed between them whereby the defendant in some fashion convinced her to go to Toronto with him to act as an escort. He placed her photo and advertisement on the internet and brought her to various hotel sites to meet with clients. The contact phone number apparently used on some of the advertisements was the phone number of the defendant himself. The defendant rented rooms, kept the key to the room, it is alleged, and apparently Ms. D.M. was required to remain in the room until all the clients were dealt with and the monies received for her services were apparently retained by the defendant according to the complainant.
She was unaware of the number of clients she saw on any given day, but she indicates that on more than 20 occasions from January to June, 2015 she was transported to Toronto by Mr. Bright or by somebody at his request with him present. On one occasion she says she was too tired to work and she alleges that the defendant mixed in a drink some substance which made her wide awake. She believed it was some form of item which she called speed or a methamphetamine.
She says that she had requested to see her father when she was in Toronto and the defendant refused to allow her any contact essentially with the outside world. When D.M. had her menstrual cycle she says that if there were clients booked the defendant would insert some object into her vaginal cavity to reduce or eliminate the flow of her cycle fluids.
- In my view, these are serious charges. The evidence is that Ms. D.M. was only 18 years old when she first established contact with Mr. Bright. She was less than half his age. She was in a vulnerable position, and she was exposed to significant physical risks and health related risks as a result of the defendant’s actions.
The Strength of the Crown’s case
Mr. Bright is very active on social media. The Crown tenders numerous Facebook and Instagram posts from Mr. Bright in which he publicises the availability of the sexual services which he can provide.
The Crown also tenders text messages between Mr. Bright and a former girlfriend in which she chastises Mr. Bright for recruiting a girl as young as Ms. D.M..
In his reasons, the Justice of the Peace questioned why Ms. D.M. failed to called 911 and seek the assistance of the police, suggesting this might be a weakness in the Crown’s case. In my view, the Justice misapprehended the evidence with respect to Ms. D.M.’s failure to seek help from the authorities. This evidence serves to underscore the degree of control which the much older Mr. Bright was able to exercise over nineteen year old Ms. D.M..
The Accused’s Criminal Record
- Although Mr. Bright is 45 years old, there is no evidence to suggest he has ever been gainfully employed. He appears to be a career criminal. His criminal record dates back to August, 1988, when he was first convicted of failing to comply with a recognizance. Since that time he has accumulated a record of 44 convictions for various offences, including theft, possession of property obtained by crime, assault, possession of a prohibited weapon, mischief, escaping lawful custody, possession of a narcotic, fraud, failing to attend court, failing to comply with a probation order and failing to comply with the conditions of an undertaking. Significantly, in July, 2005 Mr. Bright was convicted of living on the avails of prostitution and in June, 2008 he was recommitted to jail on a charge of violating his statutory release. He has a total of 8 convictions for failing to comply with a recognizance.
The Sureties
At his hearing before the Justice of the Peace, Mr. Bright tendered three sureties. These included his mother, Diana Barton and his brother and sister in law. At the conclusion of the hearing they each pledged $10,000. These amounts are without deposit. It is difficult for me to understand how any of them could possibly provide this amount of money if called upon. There is no evidence that any of them are currently employed.
The Justice of the Peace describes the sureties as follows at p. 65 of the transcript:
Each regards the defendant as a harmless guy who has had bad luck with females and even more bad luck in business. Each considers his lack of a job or source of income for living expenses to be insignificant even at 45 years of age. Each has little or no concern with respect to his extensive record. Each considers the present charges to be of little concern. None of them have any extensive knowledge of his lifestyle or his associates or his source of income. And the bond which each of them has proposed, namely $1,000 each, is woefully inadequate.
However, having said all of that, it is common from each of them that they must know something about the individual because they all say, each and every one of them, they say that he has no money, he has no earnings. He shows that he has no assets from his alleged illegal activity involving prostitutes. None of the sureties could – proposed sureties could advise how the defendant could afford a residence in Brampton and pay six or seven hundred dollars rent in a month.
Notwithstanding his reservations about the quality of the sureties, the Justice of the Peace then proceeded to conclude that they would be suitable sureties, citing the fact that they are “senior individuals who have attended the entire bail proceeding”, referring to their “resolve” and having given their evidence “from their heart as to their involvement with him as a member of their family, even though their contact with him is not substantial over the years”.
In my view, the three sureties are woefully inadequate. They exhibit a willful blindness with respect to Mr. Bright’s extensive criminal record. Their mutual unwillingness to accept the fact that Mr. Bright has established himself as a career criminal, and that he has failed to exhibit any intention to change, makes them inappropriate candidates to act as sureties. I find that the criteria the Justice of the Peace cited in support of his conclusion that the sureties are suitable constitutes an error in law.
Two additional sureties were tendered by the defendant at the hearing before me. They are both family friends, although they appear to have a limited connection to Mr. Bright. They came across as well meaning. They fall into the same category as the other sureties. Neither of them came before the court with a full appreciation of the degree to which the defendant has embraced a criminal lifestyle, or the extent of his criminal record. In my view, they are not suitable sureties.
The Crown tendered fresh evidence at the review hearing that on July 15, 2015, which is only a week after the order granting Mr. Bright interim release, Mr. Bright’s mother accompanied her son to residential premises located at 169 Bloor Street in Sudbury. Presumably she attended there to visit a friend. CAS workers happened to be at the premises at the time, attempting to locate a missing 14 year old girl who was suspected of frequenting the premises. An individual by the name of Steven Carty was also at the premises, and he acted in an intimidating manner towards the CAS employees, taking pictures of them and acting as a gatekeeper to the premises.
The evidence before the court reveals that Mr. Carty has an extensive criminal record, including convictions for assault and assault with a weapon, obstructing a peace officer, theft, possession of counterfeit money and attempted murder. This evidence merely confirms my conclusion that Mr. Bright’s mother is clearly unsuitable to act as a surety.
Decision
In the recent decision in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] S.C.J. NO. 27 the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the scope and interpretation of the tertiary ground for bail – that the detention of an accused “is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice”.
The circumstances which must be assessed by the justice are as follows:
a) The apparent strength of the prosecutor’s case;
b) The gravity of the offence;
c) The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence;
d) The fact that an accused is liable on conviction for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment.
In this case I have determined that the prosecution has a strong case. The offence is serious, involving a young vulnerable woman. The accused is liable for a lengthy term of imprisonment on these charges. The accused is much older than the alleged victim, and he has a previous conviction for living on the avails of prostitution. The sureties are naïve and in my view are unacceptable to act as sureties.
I have balanced the relevant factors in this case and notwithstanding the presumption of innocence to which Mr. Bright is entitled, I have concluded that the decision of the Justice to release Mr. Bright was inappropriate, and that his detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
In conclusion, Mr. Bright is to be detained in custody, pending trial.
Justice E.J. Koke
Date: July 31, 2015