- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,558
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
An Ottawa justice of the peace calls Ottawa’s bail court a broken “disgrace” that is “devoid of the rule of law.”
Justice of the peace Julie Lauzon wrote that the city’s main bail court and others like it across the province “have devolved into dysfunctional and punitive bodies” where people who are presumed innocent are only released under often restrictive or unrealistic conditions pre-negotiated by Crown prosecutors in an opinion article that ran in the National Post Tuesday.
Lauzon wrote that the Criminal Code of Canada clearly states that unless a prosecutor shows why certain conditions are necessary, the justice of the peace is to release an accused on a promise to return for their next court appearance. That isn’t what’s happening in Ottawa and elsewhere, Lauzon wrote.
“It is at this point the law goes out the window, and cynicism and bullying kick in,” wrote Lauzon. “Pity the JP who dares ask for a justification of those conditions. It is the JP’s legal responsibility to ensure that the conditions placed on a person’s bail are reasonable, lawful and appropriate.
“Between forced, rushed video appearances, a lack of respect for the JP bench and the absence of the rule of law in this court, I can no longer call it a court of law. It is a disgrace. I am there to administer justice. It is not my job as a JP to sign off on release documents that are unlawful,” wrote Lauzon.
Lauzon wrote that if an accused does not accept the prosecutor’s conditions, “he or she will not be released and may have to wait any number of days for their bail hearing.”
“The fact is that people will agree to just about anything to regain their freedom and go back home to their families and daily routines. I have seen alcoholics and drug addicts accept a condition of abstinence. If only it were that easy,” wrote Lauzon. “I have seen homeless people promise $1,000 to the court. If they breach that condition, they are basically agreeing to pay that money. It should come as no surprise that they simply don’t have it.”
Lauzon said that as a result of her interpretation of bail, she has had a prosecutor turn his back to her and announce to defence lawyers “all deals were off” as long as she was presiding over the case. She alleged another prosecutor screamed at her and threw a temper tantrum after she questioned certain conditions in another case, and has been asked by another Crown to recuse herself from all bail hearings given her interpretation of bail.
In that case, Ottawa’s Crown attorney Vikki Bair sought to have Lauzon removed, or recused, from a bail hearing involving an Ottawa realtor accused of attempted murder, arguing that she was biased in favour of the accused and too easily granted bail.
By her “very constitution,” Bair argued, Lauzon “undermine(d) the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.” A second assistant Crown attorney cited previous cases in Lauzon’s court in which she stated that she “deplored” and “had great disdain” for ordering an accused to stay in detention. The Crown argued those comments “undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.”
Lauzon, who denied the Crown’s request, detained the accused and shot back that the Crown shouldn’t use a broad recusal request in place of a bail review. In her opinion piece in the National Post, Lauzon again criticized the Crown for the recusal request.
“As judicial officers, we are supposed to know the law and apply it according to our legal interpretation,” wrote Lauzon. “We expect and accept that if one or both parties disagree with the court’s decision, they have the right to appeal. It thus comes as a shock when prosecutors attempt to wrestle jurisdiction from the court, through a variety of unacceptable tactics, rather than exercise their right of appeal.”
So far, there has been no comment from the Ministry of the Attorney General or Bair on Lauzon’s column or whether the Crown’s office intends to file a complaint with the Justices of the Peace Review Council.
However, some Ottawa criminal lawyers have come to Lauzon’s defence.
“When our judicial officials feel compelled to speak out in the media, there can be no doubt our bail system is broken,” said Ottawa defence lawyer Dominic Lamb.
Lamb said currently more than 50 per cent of accused people are being held in custody awaiting trial, “shocking numbers” that he believes are the result of leaving decisions on bail so much to the discretion of prosecutors.
“The federal government needs to create new legislation to fix this problem as the culture of bail has become transfixed by fear of release and that can only be changed by a change in the law,” he said.
aseymour@postmedia.com
www.twitter.com/andrew_seymour
查看原文...
Justice of the peace Julie Lauzon wrote that the city’s main bail court and others like it across the province “have devolved into dysfunctional and punitive bodies” where people who are presumed innocent are only released under often restrictive or unrealistic conditions pre-negotiated by Crown prosecutors in an opinion article that ran in the National Post Tuesday.
Lauzon wrote that the Criminal Code of Canada clearly states that unless a prosecutor shows why certain conditions are necessary, the justice of the peace is to release an accused on a promise to return for their next court appearance. That isn’t what’s happening in Ottawa and elsewhere, Lauzon wrote.
“It is at this point the law goes out the window, and cynicism and bullying kick in,” wrote Lauzon. “Pity the JP who dares ask for a justification of those conditions. It is the JP’s legal responsibility to ensure that the conditions placed on a person’s bail are reasonable, lawful and appropriate.
“Between forced, rushed video appearances, a lack of respect for the JP bench and the absence of the rule of law in this court, I can no longer call it a court of law. It is a disgrace. I am there to administer justice. It is not my job as a JP to sign off on release documents that are unlawful,” wrote Lauzon.
Lauzon wrote that if an accused does not accept the prosecutor’s conditions, “he or she will not be released and may have to wait any number of days for their bail hearing.”
“The fact is that people will agree to just about anything to regain their freedom and go back home to their families and daily routines. I have seen alcoholics and drug addicts accept a condition of abstinence. If only it were that easy,” wrote Lauzon. “I have seen homeless people promise $1,000 to the court. If they breach that condition, they are basically agreeing to pay that money. It should come as no surprise that they simply don’t have it.”
Lauzon said that as a result of her interpretation of bail, she has had a prosecutor turn his back to her and announce to defence lawyers “all deals were off” as long as she was presiding over the case. She alleged another prosecutor screamed at her and threw a temper tantrum after she questioned certain conditions in another case, and has been asked by another Crown to recuse herself from all bail hearings given her interpretation of bail.
In that case, Ottawa’s Crown attorney Vikki Bair sought to have Lauzon removed, or recused, from a bail hearing involving an Ottawa realtor accused of attempted murder, arguing that she was biased in favour of the accused and too easily granted bail.
By her “very constitution,” Bair argued, Lauzon “undermine(d) the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.” A second assistant Crown attorney cited previous cases in Lauzon’s court in which she stated that she “deplored” and “had great disdain” for ordering an accused to stay in detention. The Crown argued those comments “undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.”
Lauzon, who denied the Crown’s request, detained the accused and shot back that the Crown shouldn’t use a broad recusal request in place of a bail review. In her opinion piece in the National Post, Lauzon again criticized the Crown for the recusal request.
“As judicial officers, we are supposed to know the law and apply it according to our legal interpretation,” wrote Lauzon. “We expect and accept that if one or both parties disagree with the court’s decision, they have the right to appeal. It thus comes as a shock when prosecutors attempt to wrestle jurisdiction from the court, through a variety of unacceptable tactics, rather than exercise their right of appeal.”
So far, there has been no comment from the Ministry of the Attorney General or Bair on Lauzon’s column or whether the Crown’s office intends to file a complaint with the Justices of the Peace Review Council.
However, some Ottawa criminal lawyers have come to Lauzon’s defence.
“When our judicial officials feel compelled to speak out in the media, there can be no doubt our bail system is broken,” said Ottawa defence lawyer Dominic Lamb.
Lamb said currently more than 50 per cent of accused people are being held in custody awaiting trial, “shocking numbers” that he believes are the result of leaving decisions on bail so much to the discretion of prosecutors.
“The federal government needs to create new legislation to fix this problem as the culture of bail has become transfixed by fear of release and that can only be changed by a change in the law,” he said.
aseymour@postmedia.com
www.twitter.com/andrew_seymour
查看原文...
