Court File and Parties

Date: 2020-03-27 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Her Majesty the Queen And: R.A.

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: Leah Gensey for the accused Darren Anger for the Crown

Heard: March 27, 2020 by telephone

Endorsement

[1] This is a detention review under s.525 of the Criminal Code. On November 1, 2019 the accused was a passenger in a car that was stopped by police in St Catharines. The driver had a suspended licence. Several syringes and a crack pipe were in plain sight. The passengers were removed from the vehicle and searched. The accused had in his personal possession 85 grammes of crystal methamphetamine, 9 grammes of crack cocaine, 15.5 grammes of powder cocaine and 4.1 grammes of fentanyl as well as small baggies, scales and seven mobile phones. He is charged with possession of these substances for the purpose of trafficking. It appears to me to be a strong Crown case on the merits and the Charter.

[2] The accused is 48 years old. His criminal record contains 84 convictions between 1987 and 2019, including six breaches of recognizance and two escapes from custody. He was recommitted as a statutory release violator after release on a five-year sentence for manslaughter (after one year of pre-sentence custody). He seems to have been a burglar in his youth. He later turned to possession of stolen property, although he has two convictions for shop breaking in 2015. He has a couple of convictions for simple possession of a narcotic, and one for possession for the purpose. There is a bit of violence on the record apart from the manslaughter. He seems to have remained active in recent years. Many of the breaches of bail are relatively recent.

[3] He was detained by Mr Froese. I do not have a transcript of the reasons. The parties agree that the same proposed surety testified but that the accused was detained on the secondary ground and that the previous record figured heavily. I see no error in that but given the lack of transcript I have to examine the circumstances anew, as well as considering the delay.

[4] The accused elected trial by a provincial court judge without a jury and was remanded to March 31, 2020 in Ontario Court for that trial. The trial will be delayed by the pandemic, perhaps to the fall.

[5] The defence offers the same surety, who has been a friend of the accused for eight or nine years. That means that the proposed bondsman has been a friend of the accused while he continued his criminal career. One could reasonably doubt the bondsman’s choice of friends.

[6] The defence proposes what amounts to house arrest. The accused would only leave the house in the company of the surety, with whom he will work. The conditions that are understandably required by the surety go a long way to underscore the obvious fact that the accused is extremely likely to reoffend.

[7] There have been no cases of COVID-19 in the Niagara Detention Centre so far. Nevertheless, the prospect of infection in the gaol figures into the analysis of the second and third grounds. While the present offences are not violent, they are related to a social problem that is associated with violence and all sorts of other ills. I do not need to set a criterion or threshold. For my purposes it is enough to say that if detention is for the time being to be imposed even more sparingly than usual, this accused still qualifies. I also note that he has a good prospect of being tried well within the Jordan guidelines. Of course, he also has the prospect of further bail reviews if the situation evolves significantly.

[8] The accused may benefit from the application of Gladue principles on sentence if he is convicted of the present offences. I do not know much about his roots, but at this point it is doubtful whether Gladue principles would do more than reduce any potential sentence somewhat.

[9] The combination of the previous record, both its length and the number of breaches of bail and the two escapes, with the seriousness of the offence and the high probability of conviction make this an obvious case for detention on the secondary ground. The accused has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated his lack of respect for court orders and for law in general. No conditions offer any reason to think that the risk of recidivism would be reduced. The bondsman testified before me. I was not satisfied that he could do any more than report the next inevitable breach.

[10] It is also obvious to me that the continued detention of the accused is required notwithstanding the delay. The bail review is dismissed.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2020-03-27