BAIL DECISION SHOCKING

Blow To Confidence In Justice System

I can't understand how a judge could possibly rule that a person
charged with two counts of attempted murder for allegedly shooting at
police officers does not pose a danger to society.

But Queen's Bench Justice Karen Simonsen did last month in the case of
Daniell Anderson, who is accused of opening fire on two cops in
December during a Jubilee Avenue drug raid.

And for that, Simonsen is the latest winner of this column's
Eight-Ball Award, handed out to highlight some of the worst
perversions of justice in our court system.

Simonsen granted Anderson bail on June 29.

We're not allowed to print the details of the bail hearing because of
a court-ordered publication ban.

I could never understand why publication bans are decreed for bail
hearings.

The courts and justice officials often criticize the news media for
not properly explaining to the public why certain decisions are made
in court. Then they turn around and make publication bans mandatory
when requested by the accused, supposedly to ensure the defendant gets
a fair trial by not poisoning some future jury.

It's a bit hypocritical, especially when you consider many of the
facts of a case have already been published.

The upshot is we can't give you the full story behind Justice
Simonsen's decision to grant Anderson bail.

But we can certainly comment on it.

The right to bail -- unless there are reasonable grounds for denial --
is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it should
be.

An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
And that presumption of innocence should, in principle, include
freedom. But there are sometimes good reasons to revoke that liberty.

The primary reason -- under the Criminal Code -- is to ensure the
accused doesn't flee. If the accused is a high-risk to flee, then bail
may be denied.

I have no idea if Anderson is a high-risk to flee. But I do know,
because of the very serious charges against him, that he is a
substantial risk to re-offend. And that is justification under
Canadian law to keep an accused in custody pending trial.

Maintaining confidence in the administration of justice is another
reason to deny bail.

I can say without hesitation that Simonsen's decision to grant
Anderson bail has dealt a serious blow to the public's confidence in
the justice system, which is already "battered," according to chief
provincial court Judge Ray Wyant in his latest annual report.

'Negative attitudes'

And it's not, as Wyant claimed, because of the media's "perpetuation
of negative attitudes towards our court system."

Public confidence in the justice system has been further battered
because of Simonsen's shocking decision, plain and simple.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone charged with attempted murder for
allegedly shooting at someone should never be granted bail, especially
when the target is a police officer.

We ask police to put themselves in harm's way in order to execute
potentially life-threatening missions such as drug raids. The least
our courts could do is deny bail to people charged with firing at them.

Besides, the Winnipeg Remand Centre is full of people facing far less
serious charges than attempted murder against police officers.

I wonder how judges like Simonsen would square that?

Maybe Judge Ray Wyant could explain that to us in his next annual
report.

In the meantime, enjoy your Eight-Ball Award, Justice Simonsen. You
deserve it.