Should the Accused be Permitted to Sit with Counsel During His/Her Trial? (Part 2)
In my
last blog entry, I looked at why the accused should be permitted to sit at counsel
table during his/her trial. In this
blog, I look at the other side of the issue and provide some justifications as to why the accused ought to remain in his/her customary and designated location,
the dock (also known as the prisoner’s box, defendant’s box, et. al).
Note: counsel
table or the dock are not the only locations for an accused during trial. On occasion, courts have ordered that the
defendant remain seated outside the defendant’s box but behind defence counsel
Dispelling Stigma through a Direction to the Jury
One of
the strongest arguments for taking the accused out of the prisoner dock is that
sitting in the box connotes to the jury an aura or stigma contrary to the
presumption of innocence. Though, some courts have taken the position that the
accused is no more stigmatised in the dock than is the jury in the jury box or
the witness in the witness box.
If
counsel feel that the position of the accused in the courtroom might prejudice
the jury, counsel can ask the judge for an appropriate direction. Some judges
as a matter of course direct the jury that everyone in the courtroom has their
traditional and individual place, including the judge and the jurors and the
accused, that the accused like the judge and the jurors sits in the place
traditionally reserved for him, and the jury cannot take that against the accused
who is presumed innocent.
R. v. Gervais, 2001
CanLII 28428 (ON SC);
R. v.
Browne, 2017 ONSC 4615, at para.
14.
The Design and Structure of the Particular Dock
In some
courtrooms, the dock is not significantly dissimilar in its physical
configuration from the jury box and witness box. Arguably, there would be little
or no stigma associated with the presence of an accused person in the dock so long as the jury
receives a proper instruction.
In other
courtrooms, the dock is configured quite differently, for instance, enclosed in
part by a glass perimeter, sometimes seven or so feet high. It communicates to the objective observer at
least the possibility that the occupant of that dock is in custody. The design and structure of such a box
carries with it a stigma and that stigma might reasonably be expected to
influence the deliberations of the jury.
R. v.
Tavares, 2015 ONSC 2792 (CanLII),
at paras. 15, 17.
Effective Communication Does Not Require Immediate
Proximity
Another strong
argument for having the accused outside the box is that the accused’s right to full
answer and defence is enhanced by being able to sit beside counsel and instruct
counsel immediately as trial matters unfold.
The
reality is that well-meaning clients at times cannot help themselves from
interrupting counsel, and seldom are the interruptions helpful.
Nonetheless,
diligent counsel must always be alert to the prospect that a communication from
the accused made during the flow of trial may be timely and important, and counsel
must be in a position to receive and act on communication from his client
during a trial.
However,
an accused need not be physically beside his/her lawyer for this to occur.
A number
of practical solutions are available.
For instance, in R. v. Minoose,
2010 ONSC 6129 (CanLII ), the trial judge facilitated communication between the
lawyer and the accused by ensuring the accused was provided with pencil and
paper, and by requiring that the special constables within the courtroom pass
the accused’s notes to defence counsel as presented to them. Further, the trial judge was amenable to a
reasonable number of short adjournments during the trial if defence counsel
needed to discuss a recent note from the defendant.
Certainly, there will be circumstances where the presence of the accused in the
dock manifestly precludes him from making full answer and defence, eg. a
defendant with a hearing impairment, complex document cases and self-represented
individuals. But such circumstances will be exceptional and can be addressed on
a case-by-case basis.
The Need for the Trier of Fact to Observe the Accused Throughout
the Trial
For some
judges, ensuring visibility of the defendant by the jury is an important
consideration, which may require the accused remaining in the prisoner box. However,
in my opinion, given the frailties of demeanour evidence, some judges overstate
the importance of this consideration.
In many courtrooms
used for jury trials, the prisoner’s box in the middle of the courtroom set
back from counsel table. This allows the
jury an unobstructed view of the accused throughout the course of trial
proceedings.
Security Issues
The risk
that drugs or weapons or implements such as pens can be transmitted back to the
custodial institution greatly increases when in-custody persons are outside the
dock.
Further,
situating the accused at counsel table may require situating security officers
to sit close to the jury. The jury may very well wonder why there is so much
security around each of the tables and in close proximity to them.
If trial
judges are required to hear evidence on the security risk an accused may pose
in court, sensitive prejudicial information about the accused may come to the
attention of the judge, where it otherwise would not: R. v. Gervais, 2001
CanLII 28428 (ON SC).
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment