Obligation to bring an Arrested Person Before a Justice without Delay


Bail/Arrest       It occasionally happens that an individual who is arrested is kept overnight until his/her bail hearing the next day.  Counsel should be mindful that there is a statutory obligation set out in section 503 of the Criminal Code, requiring that the arrested individual be brought before a justice without delay. 
The obligation of the police is to bring an arrested person who is detained before a justice “without delay”. Twenty-four hours is the outer limit of what a reasonable period is, where a justice is available. The police do not have an unqualified right to keep someone in custody for the purposes of investigation for a twenty-four hour period before taking him before a justice.
                                                                       See R. v. Koszulap, (1974) 20 C.C.C. (2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.).
In R. v. Simpson (1994), 1994 CanLII 4528 (NL CA), 88 C.C.C. (3d) 377 (Nfld. C.A.), at p. 8, rev’d on the issue of remedy 1995 CanLII 120 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 449, the court referred to the significance of section 503 of the Criminal Code:
Section 503 may be one of the most important procedural provisions of the Criminal Code. The liberty of the subject is dominant. A person not convicted of an offence should never be held in custody except in accordance with constitutionally valid provisions of the Criminal Code or other legislation. In some jurisdictions, even during the sitting week, the police will bring an arrested person before a justice, as soon as the various tasks that generally follow an arrest are completed, for hearing as to whether the person should be released or detained. If necessary, a trial will be interrupted for this purpose.
The paramountcy of the liberty of the subject has been recognized in English law from the earliest times. Freedom is a fundamental right. It is not to be taken away except in strict accordance with the law.

Where a person is arrested with or without a warrant, it is the duty of the arresting officer to ensure that that person is not detained any longer than is necessary and that, if he or she is not authorized by law to bring about the release, the person is brought before a justice of the peace who may determine whether the detention should continue or not and, if it is not to continue, what lawful conditions should be attached to the release.

In my view, bringing an individual to the court where the bail hearing is to be conducted within the 24-hour period is not, in itself, sufficient to comply with section 503.  The section requires that the accused be “brought before a justice”.  This rule operates so that the lawfulness of the arrest can be determined and so that the accused’s freedom is curtailed no more than is necessary. These functions do not occur, however, if the individual is languishing in a holding cell waiting to be brought into court.
A breach of section 503 triggers as section 9 Charter violation, that is, it breaches the accused’s constitutional right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.   Where a serious breach has occurred, a stay of the charge/charges may be the appropriate remedy.  Where there is a finding of guilt, counsel should also consider proving the breach and arguing under 24(1) of the Charter that the appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances is the mitigation of sentence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more