R v Garro, 2016 ABQB 444

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Garro, 2016 ABQB 444 Date: 20160811 Docket: 160352720U1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Christopher Garro Applicant Restriction on Publication Judicial Interim Release – See the Criminal Code ,

section 517. By Court Order, this decision and the evidence taken, information given or representations made may not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any manner. NOTE: This decision is available from the court file. It may be published after the accused is discharged after a preliminary inquiry or, if the accused is committed to stand trial, after the end of the trial. _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr.

Garro is charged with a series of offences - including break and enter, carrying a concealed weapon, possessing a controlled substance, and breach of probation - occurring on or about February 21, 2016 and March 23, 2016. On March 24, 2016, a bail

judge denied Mr. Garro bail on the second ground. On May 13, 2016, as an aspect of review of bail, a judge of this court authorized an assessment of Mr. Garro’s mental condition by Forensic Assessment and Community Services (FACS); the objective of the assessment was to determine if Mr. Garro was a suitable candidate for release into a residential treatment program. [ 2 ] Mr.

Garro has a continuous record of convictions for related offences including, for example, 15 convictions for failing to comply, convictions as recently as February 16, 2016 for possession of a controlled substance and for carrying a concealed weapon – which convictions conform to a pattern on Mr. Garro’s convictions history - and previous convictions for break and enter. The most severe sentences imposed on Mr. Garro appear to be in the 4 month range; see August 8 convictions in Prince George and September and November 2013 convictions in Kamloops. Although Mr.

Garro’s most recent convictions, from May 2015 through February 2016, are all from Edmonton, his previous convictions all originate in British Columbia. There are also outstanding warrants for Mr. Garro in British Columbia. [ 3 ] Mr. Garro's scheduled trial date is November 24, 2016; therefore, unless he receives bail between now and then, he will have been in custody for 8 months by the time of his trial. [ 4 ] No FACS assessment is presented by Mr. Garro on this application. As I understand it, the inability to present a useful FACS assessment is not attributable to Mr.

Garro. [ 5 ] The new circumstance offered by Mr. Garro is, instead, an offer of a bed from the Hope Mission’s Men’s Breakout Recovery Program. This program is not conducted in a secure facility; it requires that each participant satisfy the requirement that “there are no court conditions that would interfere with the daily activities you will be required to do while in community”. Mr.

Garro indicates that he has put a lot of effort into obtaining this opportunity. [ 6 ] I accept that the Breakout offer is a change of circumstance. [ 7 ] However, in all the circumstances, I also conclude that it is not a material change of circumstance. [ 8 ] On the previous bail appearances, Mr. Garro himself acknowledges the seriousness of his addiction problems and the pull which British Columbia still exerts upon him, the combination of which cause serious concerns on the first and second grounds. [ 9 ] It is because of these serious problems that a FACS assessment was ordered.

That assessment would have provided the court with information about Mr. Garro’s mental condition and about the kind of facility which might be able to manage Mr. Garro at least in relation to getting him to the court as required, and maybe even getting him started on a road to recovery. Mr. Garro is unfortunately not in a position to provide us with that assessment.

As helpful as the Breakout Program probably is in many circumstances, without the FACS assessment, I am unable to conclude that the Breakout Program can adequately deal with the court’s concerns on the first and second grounds. [ 10 ] In the result, the court is left in a situation where it knows that the applicant has a serious difficulty with following court orders and serious difficulty avoiding criminal behaviour but still does not know whether these difficulties are capable of management and, if so, where and how that could be achieved.

Without the kind of information that a FACS assessment is designed to provide, there has not been a material change in the information on which the court must base a decision. [ 11 ] Because of the potential that, even if he is convicted at his trial in November, any sentence imposed would not be materially greater than the 8 months which Mr. Garro will have already served by then, I give Mr. Garro leave to reapply for judicial interim release within 30 days, if he is able to present a release program based on admission to a secure facility.

There may be an opportunity within the Breakout Program itself to at least begin the program in a secure facility; even that would provide a basis for a renewed application. Heard on the 2 nd day of August, 2016. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 10 th day of August, 2016. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Ms. K. Barker for the Crown Ms. Stacey Purser, Beresh Aloneisi O'Neill for the Applicant