CITATION: R v. Ranglin 2016 ONSC 3992

COURT FILE NO.: Crim J(P) 1156/15

DATE: 20160629

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

SHELDON RANGLIN

Defendant

B. McGuire and E. Taylor for the Crown

M. Moon and A. Pyper for the Defendant

HEARD: May 10, 2016

ENDORSEMENT ON LOCATION OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE TRIAL

Ricchetti J.:

THE CHARGE

[1] Mr. Ranglin is charged with the first degree murder of Keith Brissett Jr. on June 7, 2011.

THE APPLICATION

[2] Prior to the beginning of the trial, I advised counsel of this court’s decision on this application and advised I would provide written reasons at a later date. These are those written reasons.

[3] The Defence seeks an order that Mr. Ranglin be permitted to sit at counsel table during the trial. The Crown opposes the application.

THE EVIDENCE

[4] The evidence on this voir dire consisted of Maplehurst Incident Reports and Mr. Ranglin’s criminal record.

THE POSITION OF THE DEFENCE

[5] The Defence submits that:

a) There is no evidence of any security concerns or risk of flight;

b) Mr. Ranglin has no criminal record for violence; and

c) Mr. Ranglin will be in a better sightline of the jury if seated at counsel table.

THE POSITION OF THE CROWN

[6] The Crown submits that the Maplehurst Incident Reports raise serious concerns regarding courtroom security and, in the circumstances of this case, are heightened because of certain Crown witnesses. The Crown submits the order sought should not be granted.

THE LAW

[7] The parties agree on the applicable law that the court must exercise its discretion by balancing the interests of an accused’s rights to a fair trial and courtroom security.

[8] The parties agree the onus is on the Defence to establish that Mr. Ranglin be permitted to sit outside the prisoner’s box.

[9] Where the parties disagree is the departure point for this court’s analysis. There are two divergent lines of authority summarized in R. v. Ramanathan [2009] O.J. No. 6233 (S.C.). One line of authorities proceeds from the assumption that isolating the accused in the prisoner’s box undermines the presumption of innocence. The other line of authorities does not accept that assumption. As a result, the departure point for the analysis differs depending on which line of authority is accepted.

ANALYSIS

[10] The Defence submits that, if Mr. Ranglin had been released on bail, he would be entitled to sit at counsel table. I agree that it is highly unusual to refuse leave to permit an accused on bail to sit at counsel table. However, Mr. Ranglin is not on bail. He has been in custody since his arrest in March 2014. Mr. Ranglin has never applied for bail. As a result, the comparison between the location of an accused on bail and an accused in custody adds very little, if anything, to the analysis.

[11] The Defence submits that the jury’s sightline of Mr. Ranglin would be better if Mr. Ranglin were sitting at counsel table. I disagree. From a sightline perspective, the jury can best see Mr. Ranglin if he is in the prisoner’s box. There are no obstructions between the jury and the prisoner’s box. On the other hand, if Mr. Ranglin were sitting at the Defence counsel table, there are regular obstructions between the jury and Defence counsel table: Crown’s counsel table with two Crown counsel, a lectern and Defence counsel will be between the jury box and Mr. Ranglin’s proposed location. Counsel while conducting examinations throughout the trial, will obstruct the jury’s sightline to Mr. Ranglin if he is sitting at counsel table.

[12] The Defence suggests that, perhaps, Mr. Ranglin could sit at the end of Defence counsel table. I agree that this would help somewhat with the jury’s sightline of Mr. Ranglin but Mr. Ranglin would be seated much further away from the jury and when counsel are at the lectern, there would continue to be a partial or full obstruction by the jury of Mr. Ranglin.

[13] As for communications between Mr. Ranglin and Defence counsel, I note that the prisoner’s box and Defence counsel are close enough that there would be little difference between Mr. Ranglin being in the prisoner’s box or at the Defence counsel table.

[14] During the jury selection process, Mr. Ranglin has been in the prisoner’s box with the usual security guards on either side of the prisoner’s box. This is now the norm for the jury. If Mr. Ranglin were to move to Defence counsel table, the security guards would have to be moved to be in reasonably close proximity to Mr. Ranglin. This may or may not raise questions with the jury or increase the suspicion that Mr. Ranglin is in custody.

[15] That leaves the issue of courtroom security.

[16] In this case, it is not necessary for this court to decide which of the competing lines of authority are applicable as this court concludes that the evidence establishes:

a)There are significant courtroom security risks and concerns if Mr. Ranglin is not in the prisoner’s box during the trial; and

b) Those security concerns are heightened given a number of Crown witnesses where there will be considerable hostility between Mr. Ranglin and those witnesses during the trial. In addition, the logistical issue of dealing with those in-custody witnesses becomes more problematic if Mr. Ranglin were at counsel table.

Courtroom Security Risks and Concerns

[17] I agree with Defence counsel that Mr. Ranglin’s criminal record adds nothing to this analysis. Mr. Ranglin has no convictions for crimes of violence.

[18] However, the Maplehurst Incident Reports tell a very different story of Mr. Ranglin’s past violence and refusal to comply with authority. The Maplehurst Correctional Facility is designed to provide a facility where the layout and constant supervision of inmates by guards is intended to minimize or eliminate violent behaviour at the facility. The inmates are constantly supervised and expected to comply with the instructions of the guards.

[19] Mr. Ranglin has been involved in numerous violent incidents while in custody on the current charge:

April 8, 2014

Mr. Ranglin was part of three inmates who assaulted another inmate.

May 20, 2014

Mr. Ranglin was part of a fight involving a number of inmates.

May 24, 2014

A fight broke out in the facility involving Mr. Ranglin. The guards tried to stop the fight. Mr. Ranglin was not compliant with the guard’s demands to stop and had to be handcuffed and forcibly removed from the area.

October 13, 2014

Mr. Ranglin was part of a four inmate fight at the facility.

November 22, 2015

Mr. Ranglin’s cell mate was assaulted by Mr. Ranglin resulting in Mr. Ranglin having to be put into segregation.

January 15, 2016

Mr. Ranglin and his cell mate were searched. Mr. Ranglin’s cell mate was found to have in his possession a razor blade and Mr. Ranglin had a “lighter head” – both prohibited contraband at the facility. Mr. Ranglin was again taken to segregation.

[20] Administrative actions were taken by the authorities in some of these incidents. The Defence submits that none of these incidents resulted in criminal charges. Assessing courtroom security issues is not limited to criminal convictions but any credible and relevant evidence that demonstrates the potential for a risk to courtroom security during the trial. The above incidents clearly raise evidence of Mr. Ranglin’s propensity to participate in violence, refusal to maintain order and failure to comply with the authorities’ directions.

[21] The Defence submits that the details, such as the cause or circumstances of the incidents, are not known. To a small extent, this may be accurate. But I note several very important issues. First, Mr. Ranglin’s participation in the violence was, in some cases, observed by the guards and included in their reports. Second, Mr. Ranglin’s continued violence was, in at least one incident, in disregard to direct instructions from guards and in another incident to deliberately possess contraband. Third, Mr. Ranglin was given an opportunity to explain or provide the circumstances of the incident and he failed to do so.

[22] The Maplehurst Incident Reports demonstrate a real and serious potential for violence by Mr. Ranglin. During the trial, where his future liberty is at stake, the pressures on Mr. Ranglin will no doubt increase significantly, thereby increasing the risk to courtroom security.

[23] In my view, regardless of whatever departure point for the analysis on an accused’s location in the courtroom during a trial, the evidence has established that there is a real and considerable risk to courtroom security if Mr. Ranglin is not located in the prisoner’s box.

Crown Witnesses

[24] The Crown intends to call Mr. Anthony Borden, Mr. Moy-Lingomba and Mr. Watts. It was not clear which but some of these persons are in custody.

[25] Mr. Borden was an acquaintance or friend of Mr. Ranglin. He will be testifying that he returned Mr. Ranglin’s gun to him and then watched Mr. Ranglin shoot the victim in this case. Mr. Borden has pled guilty to accessory after the fact of the murder of Mr. Brissett and will be testifying against Mr. Ranglin.

[26] Mr. Moy-Lingomba was also an acquaintance or friend of Mr. Ranglin. It is suggested that Mr. Moy-Lingomba witnessed the shooting. Mr. Moy-Lingomba refused to be sworn at the preliminary hearing and, if he does so at trial, the Crown may attempt to introduce statements made by Mr. Moy-Lingomba to a police agent regarding Mr. Ranglin’s involvement in the shooting.

[27] Mr. Watts is a police agent who will be testifying regarding statements made to him about Mr. Ranglin’s involvement in the shooting.

[28] The Defence admits that there will be considerable hostility in the courtroom during their evidence. This circumstance alone significantly increases the risk to courtroom security during the evidence of these Crown witnesses.

[29] Some of the Crown’s witnesses may have to arrive through the prisoner’s door which is immediately behind the Defence counsel table. This creates a logistical problem. These Crown witnesses would have to arrive and leave without coming into close contact with Mr. Ranglin.

[30] I return to the sightlines issue. The hostility, including any intimidation or confrontation before, during and after these Crown witnesses testify can best be observed by the jury where there will be continuous, unobstructed view of Mr. Ranglin if he is in the prisoner’s box and the witness in the witness box.

[31] I am satisfied that these Crown witnesses potentially increase the risk to courtroom security and create potentially difficult logistics given the circumstances of this case.

CONCLUSION

[32] Having considered the above, I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that there is a significant risk to courtroom security and safety concerns which warrant Mr. Ranglin remaining in the prisoner’s box during trial.

[33] The jury will be given the usual instruction not to take into consideration the location of the participants in the trial.

Ricchetti, J.

Released: June 29, 2016