In the wake of yet another inexplicable bail ruling, David Eby and the premiers have written to the prime minister demanding a review of the country’s bail system.
Their action was prompted by the June 16 murder of a 30-year-old Surrey woman, Tori Dunn. Her alleged killer, Adam Troy Mann, has a criminal record too lengthy to print here.
He was out on bail despite facing criminal charges for an unrelated robbery, and despite having “barely missed the criteria for being diagnosed as a psychopath,” according to his parole record.
This is the second time in two years that the premiers have made this demand. It happened last year as well after an Ontario police officer, Const. Grzegorz Pierzchala, was killed by a man out on bail who had a prior record of assault and weapons charges.
In this recent letter, the premiers complain of “repeat and violent offenders being released into our communities without proper considerations.”
This is nothing less than a plain statement of fact.
The question is not whether something should be done to tighten bail and probation conditions. The question is how this could be done.
The federal government has already made a move in this direction. Bill C-48, which establishes bail conditions, was amended this year to limit access to early release for violent offenders.
Yet, as the premiers point out, nothing has changed. We saw yet another example of this when, last month after a violent physical and sexual assault in downtown Victoria, a suspect was arrested but immediately let out on bail.
The problem lies not with Bill C-48, but with an ongoing effort by our courts to offer ever more generous treatment to offenders, even those charged with violent crimes.
This trend can be traced back to a 2017 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that ordered police and courts to release detainees at the “earliest reasonable opportunity” and “on the least onerous conditions.”
Yet there is no support for such generous terms in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What the Charter says on this subject is: “Any person charged with an offence has the right … not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.” That’s a long way from “earliest opportunity” and “least onerous conditions.”
It appears that if meaningful change is to occur, justice ministries across the country will have to take the lead.
They certainly have the right to do so. The B.C. Attorney General Act says “The Attorney General must superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in British Columbia…”
The other provinces employ similar language, while the Constitution Act empowers the federal Attorney General to supervise federal courts.
No doubt the reluctance to push back on the courts is due to a desire not to politicize the administration of justice.
And that is appropriate as far as it goes.
Nevertheless it’s never a good thing when any group of officials, whatever their standing, assume the power to act without oversight or correction.
If doctors, lawyers and nurses can be called to account for failing to meet required standards, so too should judges.
And here the country’s justice ministers have a role to play. Busying themselves with letter writing gets us nowhere.
What’s needed is a clear statement of the bail standards judges must meet, and the willingness to administer disciplinary measures when those standards are not met.
On this subject, the public have already spoken. According to the federal justice ministry, 79 per cent of Canadians think sentencing is too lenient.
If our judges aren’t listening, it’s up to our attorneys general to see they do.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
