NCJ Number
52252
Journal
CRIMINAL LAW QUARTERLY Volume: 17 Dated: (1974-1975) Pages: 258-272
Date Published
1974
Length
15 pages
Annotation
RESULTS OF AN OBSERVATION OF PRETRIAL HEARINGS IN A SINGLE COURT FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF A LIBERALIZED BAIL REFORM BILL IN CANADA ARE REPORTED.
Abstract
THE RECENT CANADIAN BAIL REFORM ACT PLACES THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PROSECUTOR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACCUSED SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE HIS TRIAL. A LIKELIHOOD THAT HE WILL NOT APPEAR FOR TRIAL OR THAT HE CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE PUBLIC ARE SPECIFIED AS THE ONLY CAUSES FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION. A GRADUATED SERIES OF FORMS OF RELEASE OF THE ACCUSED INDICATED IN THE STATUTE ARE DESCRIBED IN THE ARTICLE. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE EFFECTS OF BAIL REFORM ACT IN PRACTICE, JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE PROCEEDINGS WERE OBSERVED IN A COURT IN THE YORK JURISDICTION FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH (20 FULL COURT DAYS). JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE HEARINGS WERE HELD FOR 3 HOURS IN THE MORNING ON EACH COURT DAY. A TOTAL OF 448 PERSONS CAME BEFORE THE COURT DURING THIS PERIOD, WITH THE MAJORITY BEING CHARGED WITH SERIOUS PROPERTY OFFENSES. THROUGH THE USE OF RECORDS OF DISPOSITION, EACH OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS WAS FOLLOWED THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM FROM THE TIME OF FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE FINAL JUDICIAL DECISION REGARDING RELEASE OR DETENTION. A RECORD WAS ALSO KEPT OF THE DAILY WORKLOAD. FOR 56 PERCENT OF THE SAMPLE, AN ORDER WAS MADE FOR PRETRIAL RELEASE OR DETENTION. WITHIN THIS GROUP, 87.6 PERCENT WERE RELEASED ON UNDERTAKING OR RECOGNIZANCE, AND 12.4 PERCENT WERE DETAINED. IN ONLY 57.4 PERCENT OF THE 54 CASES WHERE THE PROSECUTOR SHOWED CAUSE FOR DETENTION WAS THE ORDER FOLLOWED BY THE JUDGE; WHEN A PARTICULAR FORM OF RELEASE WAS RECOMMENDED, THE JUDGE ACCEPTED SUCH RECOMMENDATION IN 95.4 PERCENT OF THE CASES. WHEN WORKLOADS WERE HEAVY, A TENDENCY TO REMAND CASES FOR A LATER HEARING, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHERE DETENTION WAS RECOMMENDED, WAS OBSERVED. THE LAW PERMITS A MAXIMUM 3-DAY DETENTION AFTER REMAND BEFORE ANOTHER HEARING. SINCE A TRIAL DATE CANNOT BE SET UNTIL THE JUDICIAL INTERIM HEARING HAS BEEN HELD, THIS PRACTICE OF REMAND IS BELIEVED TO CONSTITUTE UNNECESSARY PRETRIAL DETENTION. THE EXTENSION OF HEARINGS INTO THE AFTERNOON TO HANDLE THE WORKLOAD IS SUGGESTED AS A MEANS OF REDUCING THE PRACTICE OF REMANDS. DATA FROM THE STUDY ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)