Panel gives thumbs down to bail bills

Two lawyers said they are doubtful about bail reform bills being introduced by the federal Liberal and Conservative parties during a Brandon University panel on Wednesday.

The intention to curb crime and make Canada safer is not likely to be achieved by two pieces of legislation put forward this year by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, lawyers Rich Lonstrup and Jennifer Janssens said on Wednesday. The lawyers were part of BU’s “Bail Reform in the Court of Public Opinion” panel.

“The intention of politicians to reduce crime, create a safer society, is very noble,” Janssens, a criminal defence attorney, said on Wednesday night. “However, the effect of their proposed legislation is not going to obtain that at all.”

As a criminal defence lawyer, Janssens argues on behalf of people accused of crimes to defend them against charges. She said that the only tangible effect of the proposed bills will be to waste court time.

“Politicians are not experts on bail. We need to trust the courts, trust the judges, trust the Supreme Court of Canada in their guidance on bail and in those decisions.”

Lonstrup, who is a Crown attorney, said that Carney’s Bill C-14 would not sway bail rulings.

Carney’s proposal to flip the onus for several offences so that people accused argue for their right to bail would not change much decision-making from a judge, he said. The judge will make a similar decision based on evidence in either case, he said.

“Reversing the onus looks great on paper, (but) it doesn’t achieve much more than what was already in place,” he said. “Our judges are very smart people, they make genuinely appropriate judgment calls.”

The bill from Carney may appear to be more influential than it would actually turn out to be, in his legal opinion, he said.

“In a rage-farming society, it’s easy to propose things that sound great, but don’t really do anything.”

Lonstrup also criticized Poilievre’s Bill C-242, saying it would go too far in the wrong direction. Lonstrup said the Conservative bill would force Superior Court judges to preside over things that could easily be handled at lower levels of court.

The reality would be this would tie up already-scarce resources in the Superior Court, he said, A potential result is that accused people could walk due to such delays.

“(The proposed laws) do too much, in a way that is really going to be detrimental towards people getting a speedy trial, when charges get dropped if someone doesn’t get the trial they are entitled to within a certain time frame.”

Brandon University sociology professor Chris Schneider argued on the panel on Wednesday that politicians’ bail reform efforts are off the mark.

“When we have flashy political slogans that are three or four words … it sounds exciting, it sounds catchy and we can repeat it, people hear it and it spreads. But is it connected to anything of any concrete substance that helps us to really understand the topic at hand, in this circumstance, bail reform?”

Schneider argued to the crowd that crime is down in Canada in recent history, and that people can be manipulated through fear to believe that society is more dangerous than it is.

“When politicians and other claims-makers and the prime minister tell us they are fixing the Criminal Code, and that there is a violent rash in crime, and crime is spiking, some of these things are not true, some of these things are sort of twisting the truth a bit. Don’t take those claims at face value.”

Schneider said that it is a mistake to believe that politicians will be successful in reducing crime by putting forward measures like the bail bills.

“Tough on crime does not work, it never has worked, and it never will work.”

When speaking of ankle monitors as a tool for bail, both lawyers supported the idea. Lonstrup said he loves ankle monitors as a tool to enforce bail conditions because it provides great feedback.

“The best part about ankle monitoring is it takes trust right out of it — we know instantly, we don’t have to read minds,” he said. “We know when someone is in breach of those kinds of conditions.”

The concrete evidence from tracking the person on bail allows the court system to make solid choices in the future should that person return to the courtroom, Lonstrup said.

“Boy, oh boy. If you were one of the guys that cut off your ankle monitor, and you get in trouble later, and you’re like, ‘No, no, no, trust me I can follow bail conditions.’ You might as well not even get out of bed that morning in terms of showing up to bail court,” he said. “Let’s just say it provides great feedback.”

Janssens agreed that, even as a lawyer who represents people that would be monitored, she supports the tool. She supported an additional feature of ankle monitors; a tool where victims can receive a notification on their phone when the ankle monitor comes near to them.

“I agree it is great as well, I mean it makes our jobs easier because if we know someone breached or not, there’s no argument about it.”

Even while Schneider argued that crime is down in Canada, Lonstrup argued that Canadians are rightly interested in criminal justice topics like bail today because Canadians are seeing crimes before their eyes, especially surrounding methamphetamine.

“Both parties have a common goal in mind, and its a very reasonable one,” he said. “Their constituents tell them how bad it’s getting, and what they’ve seen, and they are not wrong in saying they’ve seen it.”

» cmcdowell@brandonsun.com