R. v. Rodriguez, 2011 ABQB 809

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R. v. Rodriguez, 2011 ABQB 809 Date: 20111222 Docket: 110925161U2 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Sanja Peric Jenny Rodriguez Accused _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________

Summary [ 1 ] Ms. Rodriguez applies for bail review and, if review is granted, for relief from the requirements that she reside with her mother and that she be bound by a daily curfew. [ 2 ] Both applications are allowed. The circumstances of the initial joint bail hearing were set out in the decision relating to the

co-accused, Peric; the Sheppard problem relating to the reasons given during that bail hearing applies equally to Ms. Rodriguez. That error of law entitles Ms. Rodriguez to a new bail hearing. [ 3 ] On a fresh consideration of bail, the court notes that Ms. Rodriguez - like Ms. Peric - has no criminal record and she that - again like Ms. Peric - had no contact with the criminal justice system from the date of events at the West Edmonton Mall until the date, several months later, when she was charged, and, indeed, until this application.

In those circumstances, the Crown has not proved that it is necessary to impose any restrictions - beyond the usual undertaking to appear when required - on Ms. Rodriguez ’ s liberty either to ensure Ms. Rodriguez ’ s attendance at trial or the protection and safety of the public. Ms. Rodriguez has no objection to maintaining the no contact provision originally imposed relative to Ms. Peric; that condition will therefore continue until trial. Cases and authority cited [ 4 ] By the court: R. v Peric 2011 ABQB 1. Background [ 5 ] The circumstances which led to the charges against Ms.

Rodriguez and the subsequent bail hearing were set out in the Peric decision. [ 6 ] Ms. Rodriguez is in a similar situation to Ms. Peric in that neither one has a criminal record. Ms. Rodriguez is particularly concerned about the bail restriction which requires her to live with her mother: she would like to live with her fiancé and would like to travel outside the country on a holiday. 2. Has the Crown proved that it is necessary to restrict Ms. Rodriguez ’ s liberty in order to ensure her attendance at trial? [ 7 ] The Crown has not proved that it is necessary to impose restrictions on Ms.

Rodriguez ’ s liberty in order to ensure her attendance at trial. [ 8 ] Ms. Rodriguez has no history of failing to comply with court orders. There is no evidence that Ms. Rodriguez has material ties outside Alberta. Therefore, the Crown has not established that it is necessary to restrict Ms. Rodriguez ’ s liberty until the trial of these charges in order to ensure that Ms. Rodriguez attends to deal with the matters. In relation to the first ground, Ms. Rodriguez is entitled to be released on providing an undertaking that she will appear in court as required. 3.

Has the Crown proved that it is necessary to restrict Ms. Rodriguez ’ s liberty in order to ensure the protection and safety of the public? [ 9 ] The Crown has not proved that it is necessary to impose restrictions on Ms. Rodriguez ’ s liberty in order to ensure the protection and safety of the public. [ 10 ] Ms. Rodriguez has no criminal record. There is no suggestion that Ms. Rodriguez has committed any offences since the events with which we are concerned took place. Nor is there any suggestion, much less evidence, that Ms.

Rodriguez has attempted to cheat the administration of justice by contacting the complainants with a view to influencing their evidence at trial. Therefore, the Crown has not established that it is necessary to restrict Ms. Rodriguez ’ s liberty until the trial of these charges in order to ensure that she will not commit offences until the trial is heard. However, Ms. Rodriguez does not object to the maintenance of the no contact provision relative to Ms. Peric originally imposed by the bail judge; therefore, that clause will continue as Ms.

Rodriguez acknowledges that it is a reasonable restriction relative to the second ground.

4. Has the Crown proved that it is necessary to restrict Ms. Rodriguez ’ s liberty in order to maintain the reasonable person ’ s confidence in the administration of justice? [ 11 ] It is my understanding that the Crown does not suggest that the third ground requires consideration in the circumstances here. Therefore, the Court does not comment on that third ground. Heard on the 14 th day of December, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21 st day of December, 2011. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Patrick Edgerton-McGhan, Student-at-law, Peter G. Northcott Professional Corporation for Ms. Rodriguez Nicole N.C. Lachance, Crown Prosecutors Office for the Crown