Freezing fog

Winnipeg, MB

-1°c Freezing fog

Full Forecast

Editorials

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Aboriginal bail

Posted: 10/7/2013 1:00 AM | Comments: 0

Advertisement

  • Print

Last week a Winnipeg Court of Queen's Bench judge rejected an accused's aboriginal heritage as a factor courts must expressly weigh on bail applications. Justice Sheldon Lanchberry declined to apply Criminal Code sentencing provisions, which mandate "particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders," to a bail hearing.

The judge rightly saw the argument as a clumsy attempt to graft a sentencing principle onto bail law.

But the legal argument was, at base, also unnecessary. Judges already often factor in an accused's aboriginal background when molding bail conditions.

Criminal Code bail provisions are flexible in the extreme, giving judges broad discretion to tailor release conditions to an accused's particular circumstances in order to minimize the risk of re-offending pending trial or a guilty plea.

The Criminal Code recites a litany of conditions -- regular reporting to a peace officer, residing in a specific location and refraining from communicating with a complainant -- and gives judges the latitude to impose "such other reasonable conditions specified in the order as the justice considers desireable."

By design, bail provisions take into account an accused's circumstances and background. And the courts have always considered the particular causes of both an accused's past convictions and current charges when weighing whether, and on what conditions, an accused might be released.

The proper competing principles on a bail application are an accused's presumption of innocence, which includes the right not to be deprived of liberty longer than necessary, and the safety of the public.

Justice Lanchberry correctly declined to "re-write" the Criminal Code on a bail application, determining a re-working of the law is best left to Parliament.

But more to the point, the aboriginal offender's application to redraw the law was redundant.

Editorials are the consensus view of the Winnipeg Free Press’ editorial board, comprising Catherine Mitchell, David O’Brien, Shannon Sampert, and Paul Samyn.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 7, 2013 A8

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.