Stuart O'Connell Criminal Law Blog

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...

At the beginning of a trial, defence counsel may bring an application to have the accused sit at the table with his counsel.     The customary position is that the accused in the courtroom remain in the dock/prisoner box. R. v. Gervais , 2001 CanLII 28428 (ON SC). The prisoner’s dock is traditionally an uncomfortable narrow wooden bench with no place to write or place pen and paper. Where an accused person sits during his or her trial is within the discretion of the presiding judge, to be determined in the interests of a fair trial and courtroom security. R. v. Levogiannis (1993), 1993 CanLII 47 (SCC), 85 C.C.C. (3d) 327 (S.C.C) . Each case must be examined on its own merits. R v Power , 1992 CanLII 7110 (NL CA), at para. 20. As the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Court of Appeal) has opined:   the prisoner’s dock is a form of restraint.   One might contemplate that the use of the prisoner's dock may eventually disappear comp...