Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

[brihard]

I’ll be honest, I’ve disconnected from following politics for around a year & a half or so now — and I had no idea how blissful it can be to be in the dark.

There is no getting around following the Prime Minister’s constant verbal diarrhoea. I feel the same way as you do

I'm glad these folks were remanded. I am all for people protesting, especially when they are protesting what very much appears to be exceptional government overreach. Conspiring to murder anybody, especially our police officers, should get you remanded for obvious reasons.

That being said... Having to wait almost a year for your trial to happen, when one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, causes me concern.

If the Crown has enough solid evidence that it is comfortable proceeding with the file, And asking that the individual be remanded - Why is the trial scheduled for almost a year from now?

Yes the Crown has an obligation to provide disclosure in a timely manner, and the accused needs time to retain legal counsel, etc.

But being stuck behind bars for almost a year when you haven't been convicted of the crime... In the bigger picture, it seems concerning?


( I am not arguing that the individuals do not pose a threat to society. Clearly if they have the firearms and other paraphernalia as stated, And their communications support the charges, etc.

My only concern stems from having people remanded for such a long period when they have not been convicted of a crime. The seriously can't schedule anything sooner than June?)

That kind of timeline is normal, largely due to the challenges of scheduling court. Defense counsel availability can be a huge issue, and then you need a judge with sufficient time open for the anticipated trial length. The SCC case R V Jordan addressed this, and set a timeline of 18 months in provincial court or 30 months in superior court as presumptively unreasonable. Time added by defense doesn’t count, and there’s a mechanism for arguing delays from outside factors.

I also think you underestimate how long it can take defense counsel to prepare for a trial. I’m involved in disclosure on a major file and the sheer volume of material counsel on both sides have to review is staggering. Defense can’t rush it.

A LOT goes into whether someone gets bail or not, and on our end, properly preparing a bail package can be a lot of work. Been there, done that many times. The presumption is that a person will get bail; the onus is usually on the crown to demonstrate why they shouldn’t, excepting some limited reverse onus situations. Bail hearings are often covered by publication bans, and we don’t get to learn the reasons til later after trial. I think that’s the case here. Such bans are normally requested to protect the integrity of a later trial and to avoid tainting a jury pool.

As an add on to this, if any are acquitted are they entitled to compensation for the dismantling of their lives? Not for a moment bringing their guilt or innocence into it, I have a peace officer daughter with an RCMP hubby. These muppets deserve everything coming to them.

If they think they can argue that they were wronged civilly they can try, but there’s no default damages or anything. Not getting criminally convicted doesn’t mean you didn’t actually do the thing you’re accused of. Legal culpability is often a much higher threshold than factual events.

 

[Haggis]

I'm glad these folks were remanded. I am all for people protesting, especially when they are protesting what very much appears to be exceptional government overreach. Conspiring to murder anybody, especially our police officers, should get you remanded for obvious reasons.

That being said... Having to wait almost a year for your trial to happen, when one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, causes me concern.

If the Crown has enough solid evidence that it is comfortable proceeding with the file, And asking that the individual be remanded - Why is the trial scheduled for almost a year from now?

Yes the Crown has an obligation to provide disclosure in a timely manner, and the accused needs time to retain legal counsel, etc.

But being stuck behind bars for almost a year when you haven't been convicted of the crime... In the bigger picture, it seems concerning?

In Canada, the conditions under which a person may be retained in custody are quite narrow.
CCC s. 495(1) sets out the conditions for arrest without a warrant. 495 (2)(d) and (e) set out the conditions which must be met in order for a person to remain in custody. These are colloquially known as "R.I.C.E"

• Prevent the Repetition or continuation of an offence or the commission of another offence.
• Confirm the Identity of the accused.
• Compel attendance in Court (e.g. is the accused likely to appear or are they a flight risk?)
• Secure and Preserve Evidence.

If all these conditions are met, the accused MUST be released.
This is why you very often see news articles stating: "Bloggins was arrested for XXX and released on a promise to appear with a court date of October XX".

 

[brihard]

In Canada, the conditions under which a person may be retained in custody are quite narrow.
CCC s. 495(1) sets out the conditions for arrest without a warrant. 495 (2)(d) and (e) set out the conditions which must be met in order for a person to remain in custody. These are colloquially known as "R.I.C.E"

• Prevent the Repetition or continuation of an offence or the commission of another offence.
• Confirm the Identity of the accused.
• Compel attendance in Court (e.g. is the accused likely to appear or are they a flight risk?)
• Secure and Preserve Evidence.

If all these conditions are met, the accused MUST be released.
This is why you very often see news articles stating: "Bloggins was arrested for XXX and released on a promise to appear with a court date of October XX".

Close but not quite. RICE is part of, but not exhaustively, a larger public interest. Also, there are offences for which an accused cannot be released, but must be brought before a justice- these will be for the most serious indictable offences.

So all that said, 495 governs initial arrest without warrant, but judicial interim release and the bail regime are set out elsewhere. The considerations are similar in principle, but the bail system also concerns itself with other additional considerations for whether or not someone should remain in custody. And then if someone gets bail and then breaches, the calculus can (not always ‘will’) change further.

 

[Kat Stevens]

That kind of timeline is normal, largely due to the challenges of scheduling court. Defense counsel availability can be a huge issue, and then you need a judge with sufficient time open for the anticipated trial length. The SCC case R V Jordan addressed this, and set a timeline of 18 months in provincial court or 30 months in superior court as presumptively unreasonable. Time added by defense doesn’t count, and there’s a mechanism for arguing delays from outside factors.

I also think you underestimate how long it can take defense counsel to prepare for a trial. I’m involved in disclosure on a major file and the sheer volume of material counsel on both sides have to review is staggering. Defense can’t rush it.

A LOT goes into whether someone gets bail or not, and on our end, properly preparing a bail package can be a lot of work. Been there, done that many times. The presumption is that a person will get bail; the onus is usually on the crown to demonstrate why they shouldn’t, excepting some limited reverse onus situations. Bail hearings are often covered by publication bans, and we don’t get to learn the reasons til later after trial. I think that’s the case here. Such bans are normally requested to protect the integrity of a later trial and to avoid tainting a jury pool.



If they think they can argue that they were wronged civilly they can try, but there’s no default damages or anything. Not getting criminally convicted doesn’t mean you didn’t actually do the thing you’re accused of. Legal culpability is often a much higher threshold than factual events.

That's some system there. "we know you did it, we just can't prove it so tough shit about the nine months pre trial incarceration. Have a nice day!" Democracy in action, reminds me of my first orders parade, " nobody saw you do it, Sapper Stevens, and we have no proof that you did it, but Sgt Maj Senility says you did it, so here's a $150 fine and 14 days CB, have a nice day!"

 

[CBH99]

That kind of timeline is normal, largely due to the challenges of scheduling court. Defense counsel availability can be a huge issue, and then you need a judge with sufficient time open for the anticipated trial length. The SCC case R V Jordan addressed this, and set a timeline of 18 months in provincial court or 30 months in superior court as presumptively unreasonable. Time added by defense doesn’t count, and there’s a mechanism for arguing delays from outside factors.

I also think you underestimate how long it can take defense counsel to prepare for a trial. I’m involved in disclosure on a major file and the sheer volume of material counsel on both sides have to review is staggering. Defense can’t rush it.

A LOT goes into whether someone gets bail or not, and on our end, properly preparing a bail package can be a lot of work. Been there, done that many times. The presumption is that a person will get bail; the onus is usually on the crown to demonstrate why they shouldn’t, excepting some limited reverse onus situations. Bail hearings are often covered by publication bans, and we don’t get to learn the reasons til later after trial. I think that’s the case here. Such bans are normally requested to protect the integrity of a later trial and to avoid tainting a jury pool.



If they think they can argue that they were wronged civilly they can try, but there’s no default damages or anything. Not getting criminally convicted doesn’t mean you didn’t actually do the thing you’re accused of. Legal culpability is often a much higher threshold than factual events.

Close but not quite. RICE is part of, but not exhaustively, a larger public interest. Also, there are offences for which an accused cannot be released, but must be brought before a justice- these will be for the most serious indictable offences.

So all that said, 495 governs initial arrest without warrant, but judicial interim release and the bail regime are set out elsewhere. The considerations are similar in principle, but the bail system also concerns itself with other additional considerations for whether or not someone should remain in custody. And then if someone gets bail and then breaches, the calculus can (not always ‘will’) change further.

A few years back while jumbling a few casual jobs, I did work at a provincial prison.

Part of my job was to sit in on JIR’s (the police would often use our cells if their 2 already had tenants) so I became familiar enough with the process, but nowhere near the working knowledge that you guys have.

That was a question I always had in the back of my mind.

Obviously this case is a serious one, and will garner national media attention - but it makes me wonder about all the cases we never hear of about, aka the ‘everyday grind of the system.’

It seems odd that we put right in the Charter that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but can hold them in prison prior to their trial with no mechanism to somehow correct a situation if they are acquitted, found not guilty, etc.

 

[Haggis]

Close but not quite. RICE is part of, but not exhaustively, a larger public interest. Also, there are offences for which an accused cannot be released, but must be brought before a justice- these will be for the most serious indictable offences.

So all that said, 495 governs initial arrest without warrant, but judicial interim release and the bail regime are set out elsewhere. The considerations are similar in principle, but the bail system also concerns itself with other additional considerations for whether or not someone should remain in custody. And then if someone gets bail and then breaches, the calculus can (not always ‘will’) change further.

Well put, and in retrospect, I didn't pay enough attention to the "bail" focus of CBH99's post (posting quickly during a break in roof repairs).

You deal with bail releases more often than we do. It's mostly 495/496/497 for us under the CCC.

 

[CBH99]

Well put, and in retrospect, I didn't pay enough attention to the "bail" focus of CBH99's post (posting quickly during a break in roof repairs).

You deal with bail releases more often than we do. It's mostly 495/496/497 for us under the CCC.

Regardless, I appreciate both of your posts!

Both exceptionally informative & makes the process easier to understand once one see’s all the mechanisms involved.

 

[brihard]

That's some system there. "we know you did it, we just can't prove it so tough shit about the nine months pre trial incarceration. Have a nice day!"

It seems odd that we put right in the Charter that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but can hold them in prison prior to their trial with no mechanism to somehow correct a situation if they are acquitted, found not guilty, etc.

Well, no, you guys are presenting it as if I can catch someone doing something, arrest and charge them, and then tell them 'LOL, rot in jail dumb dumb, your trial's February 2024", and then however it goes, too bad, so sad. It's not like that at all.

Firstly, the presumption is they will be released. For most offences, we can release someone on the spot with paperwork as long as we aren't concerned about repetition, the suspect's identification, their attendance in court, or the preservation of evidence. That means if I arrest a guy for beating his wife and I have grounds to believe he'll go right back and beat her again, I'll hold him in custody. If I catch someone smashing up a car, he has no ID and refuses to identify himself, I'll hold him. If I arrest and charge a guy and he's already out on bail, has an arrest warrant out for skipping court, and has a history of fail to appear in court, I'm holding him. If I arrest a guy for drug trafficking and we're still working on a search warrant for the stash house, and releasing him will result in a phone call and drugs getting flushed, I'm holding him.

Holding him just means he goes before a Justice of the Peace or Judge (almost always JP) as soon as practicable. The presumption is the JP will release the accused with a court date and probably some conditions. For the accused to be held in custody after that point, they either need to consent to it (common for a few days to perfect a bail plan), or the Crown needs to 'Show Cause' why the person can't be released. Again, the presumption is they go free, and anything other than that will usually be on the strength of a convincing argument form the crown.

Even if a JP decides to hold someone in custody, the accused can still request a bail review at any point and take the matter before a judge. They can offer new information. They can offer a better bail plan, more effectively crafted conditions, a better surety. This, for instance, is what happened with Tamara Lich. She was arrested, was initially held in custody, and eventually got a bail review and presented a good enough plan to get bail (this is all pre-breach obviously).

So, on arrest the presumption is the accused gets released unless the police officer has distinct and lawful grounds not to. If held, then the presumption at bail hearing is they get released unless crown shows good cause why not. Even if held then, the accused can request a bail review if circumstances change in their favour.

It is absolutely possible that a person gets arrested, remanded (held in custody), sits in jail for a year, and then goes to court and is acquitted or has charges stayed or withdrawn. It happens. In almost all cases, something has happened to cause the crown the be unable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Usually the accused still did the thing, but a conviction cannot be won.

There's no automatic payout or anything if this happens. There have been a number of checks and balances along the way. If, despite all that, a person who was accused and held, and later acquitted wishes to, they can lawyer up and file a lawsuit. If the crown or police really screwed up, they'll likely get a settlement out of it. Usually not, because usually they were in pre-trial custody for very good reason and there's a solid trail of evidence to back it up, even if the prosecution eventually falls apart. A prosecution can die for a lot of reasons, many of them very narrow and technical, and nothing to do at all with whether the accused did or didn't do it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Good explanation.....just need to add one thing that you would have no reason to deal with in your part of the system.

Sometimes they want to be remanded and stay, as they know that they are getting AT LEAST 2 days off sentence for every one served. And of course sometimes they get the 3 for 1.

With mandatory remission, a 2 year less a day sentence is done in 8 months...with no parole conditions to cramp their style afterwards.

EDIT: took out probation from my "cramp" line

 

[brihard]

Good explanation.....just need to add one thing that you would have no reason to deal with in your part of the system.

Sometimes they want to be remanded and stay, as they know that they are getting AT LEAST 2 days off sentence for every one served. And of course sometimes they get the 3 for 1.

With mandatory remission, a 2 year less a day sentence is done in 8 months...with no parole conditions to cramp their style afterwards.

EDIT: took out probation from my "cramp" line

Yup, I've definitely seen that game played. Good ol' 'time served' at sentencing.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Killing people in Canada carries the same sentence as ramming a gate. 6 years.

Military reservist who rammed Rideau Hall gate with truck sentenced to six years

A Manitoba man who rammed a gate at Rideau Hall before arming himself and heading on foot toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's home last July was sentenced Wednesday to six years in prison.

www.ctvnews.ca

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/woman-sentenced-2018-stabbing-death-colin-sutherland-1.6087041

Sask. mother who killed newborn daughter sentenced to 6 years

A judge handed down a six-year sentence for a Kindersley woman who killed her newborn daughter.

saskatoon.ctvnews.ca

Woman sentenced to six years for fatally stabbing homeless hitchhiker

The sentence was double the three-year term agreed to by prosecutors and defence lawyers.

calgaryherald.com

Wouldn't be surprised if Lich, Barber, or King get longer.

 

[TacticalTea]

Killing people in Canada carries the same sentence as ramming a gate. 6 years.

Military reservist who rammed Rideau Hall gate with truck sentenced to six years

A Manitoba man who rammed a gate at Rideau Hall before arming himself and heading on foot toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's home last July was sentenced Wednesday to six years in prison.

www.ctvnews.ca

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/woman-sentenced-2018-stabbing-death-colin-sutherland-1.6087041

Sask. mother who killed newborn daughter sentenced to 6 years

A judge handed down a six-year sentence for a Kindersley woman who killed her newborn daughter.

saskatoon.ctvnews.ca

Woman sentenced to six years for fatally stabbing homeless hitchhiker

The sentence was double the three-year term agreed to by prosecutors and defence lawyers.

calgaryherald.com

Wouldn't be surprised if Lich, Barber, or King get longer.

Disgusting.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Disgusting.

And she's probably out in 10 months if she doesn't act like a moron in prison,.....20 if she does.

 

[CBH99]

Well, no, you guys are presenting it as if I can catch someone doing something, arrest and charge them, and then tell them 'LOL, rot in jail dumb dumb, your trial's February 2024", and then however it goes, too bad, so sad. It's not like that at all.

Firstly, the presumption is they will be released. For most offences, we can release someone on the spot with paperwork as long as we aren't concerned about repetition, the suspect's identification, their attendance in court, or the preservation of evidence. That means if I arrest a guy for beating his wife and I have grounds to believe he'll go right back and beat her again, I'll hold him in custody. If I catch someone smashing up a car, he has no ID and refuses to identify himself, I'll hold him. If I arrest and charge a guy and he's already out on bail, has an arrest warrant out for skipping court, and has a history of fail to appear in court, I'm holding him. If I arrest a guy for drug trafficking and we're still working on a search warrant for the stash house, and releasing him will result in a phone call and drugs getting flushed, I'm holding him.

Holding him just means he goes before a Justice of the Peace or Judge (almost always JP) as soon as practicable. The presumption is the JP will release the accused with a court date and probably some conditions. For the accused to be held in custody after that point, they either need to consent to it (common for a few days to perfect a bail plan), or the Crown needs to 'Show Cause' why the person can't be released. Again, the presumption is they go free, and anything other than that will usually be on the strength of a convincing argument form the crown.

Even if a JP decides to hold someone in custody, the accused can still request a bail review at any point and take the matter before a judge. They can offer new information. They can offer a better bail plan, more effectively crafted conditions, a better surety. This, for instance, is what happened with Tamara Lich. She was arrested, was initially held in custody, and eventually got a bail review and presented a good enough plan to get bail (this is all pre-breach obviously).

So, on arrest the presumption is the accused gets released unless the police officer has distinct and lawful grounds not to. If held, then the presumption at bail hearing is they get released unless crown shows good cause why not. Even if held then, the accused can request a bail review if circumstances change in their favour.

It is absolutely possible that a person gets arrested, remanded (held in custody), sits in jail for a year, and then goes to court and is acquitted or has charges stayed or withdrawn. It happens. In almost all cases, something has happened to cause the crown the be unable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Usually the accused still did the thing, but a conviction cannot be won.

There's no automatic payout or anything if this happens. There have been a number of checks and balances along the way. If, despite all that, a person who was accused and held, and later acquitted wishes to, they can lawyer up and file a lawsuit. If the crown or police really screwed up, they'll likely get a settlement out of it. Usually not, because usually they were in pre-trial custody for very good reason and there's a solid trail of evidence to back it up, even if the prosecution eventually falls apart. A prosecution can die for a lot of reasons, many of them very narrow and technical, and nothing to do at all with whether the accused did or didn't do it.

Fantastic explanation. All of your posts about this has been very helpful, same with you Haggis.

That helps put it in much better context.

 

[Kilted]

I saw that this hadn't been posted yet. I wonder if the Tolkien estate or Sir Peter Jackson will have anything to say about their logo?

Concerns as convoy-connected group establishes in Ottawa neighbourhood

Concerns are being raised about the United People of Canada, a self-described 'not-for-profit social enterprise organization' behind developments at a deconsecrated Ottawa church.

ottawa.ctvnews.ca

 

[Edward Campbell]

Apparently this happened very early yesterday morning:

 

[dangerboy]

What is he protesting with an American Flag

 

[Remius]

What is he protesting with an American Flag

Details are vague right now…heard something on the radio.

 

[Edward Campbell]

What is he protesting with an American Flag

Heaven alone knows ... I've been says for months that the "protest/occupation" was, and remains, an inchoate response to a whole host of grievances, some real, many imagined, by the "Non-U"s (you have to be a certain age to get that reference) against the "U"s (AKA the Laurentian Elites and the chattering classes, and, and, and ...) ... I guess this is just part of it.

 

[brihard]

What is he protesting with an American Flag

Nothing intelligent