Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo M-P Frank Caputo has tabled a private members bill that he believes would target prolific offenders, but some in the legal community don’t think his idea would work.
Last week, Caputo put forward Bill C-274 which, if passed, would remand any offender into custody if they were charged with three indictable offences, totaling five years in prison of more.
Acumen Law’s Kyla Lee says this bill doesn’t capture the prolific offenders that we’re concerned about and could target someone facing charges related to driving offences.
“All of them have penalties that could have up to five years or more in prison. So if you get charged with dangerous driving, with impaired driving causing bodily harm and then with driving while prohibited under the criminal code you could end up being characterized a prolific offender and denied bail even though you’re not the type of person the people in our communities are concerned about.”
Lee adds that the wording is over-broad for what the intention of the bill is.
“It also is not time limited. So you can be charged more than twice with an indictable offence. You could be charged when you’re 18, charged when you’re 30 and then charged again when you’re 50. That doesn’t make you a prolific offender that makes you kind of like a normal person,” she explained.
“So again, it is capturing a real broad sub-section of the community that is not intended by this.”
She calls this bill blatantly unconstitutional.
“Bail is a protected right under the charter. Everybody who is arrested or detained for an offence has a right to reasonable bail. And bail should only be denied where a person can’t be released into the community for one of three reasons. Either that they pose a risk of reoffending, and juts because you’ve previously been charged doesn’t mean you pose a risk of reoffending, that can’t be managed appropriately through bail conditions,” Lee stated.
“If there is a risk that you would be a flight risk or if the nature of the charges or the offences are so reprehensible that it would be a shock to the community to release you. Non of these constitutional principals underline your right to be released on bail are identified in this bill… and this essentially mandates that somebody be held into custody unless they can show exceptional circumstances as to why they should be released.”
She says that is blatantly the opposite of what our constitution guarantees you have the right to have.
