R. v. Piugattuk, 2019 NUCJ 9

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Piugattuk, 2019 NUCJ 09 Date: 20190614 Docket: 07-18-10-1 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Dennis Piugattuk ________________________________________________________________________ Before: Mr. Justice Paul Bychok Counsel (Crown): D. Garson Counsel (Accused): A. Prevost Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut Date Heard: May 24, 2019 Matters: Judicial interim release review hearing pursuant to Criminal Code s. 520(1) . REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

I. BACKGROUND [ 1 ] Dennis Piugattuk was charged with 23 indictable firearms-related offences arising from an incident in Igloolik on April 3, 2018. Mr. Piugattuk was arraigned on the charges the next day, and he consented to his remand into custody. [1] He was granted bail eventually on a Recognizance on June 8, 2018, with his common-law partner to act as his surety. In the meantime, he elected to be tried by a judge and jury with a preliminary inquiry. [ 2 ] On September 11, 2018, while still on bail, Mr. Piugattuk assaulted his partner-surety who required medical treatment as a result of the attack. Mr.

Piugattuk was charged with assault causing bodily harm and breach of his bail. He again consented to his remand. Mr. Piugattuk pleaded guilty to these charges on February 13, 2019. The Court sentenced him to 153 days in jail, time served, followed by 12 months of probation. [ 3 ] Mr. Piugattuk again applied for bail on February 19, 2019. The Justice of the Peace denied his application. Mr. Piugattuk remained in jail on remand for the 2018 charges. [ 4 ] I presided over Mr.

Piugattuk’s preliminary inquiry on May 24, 2019, and I committed him to stand trial on eight charges. [ 5 ] At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Piugattuk applied for bail pending his trial pursuant to s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code . [2] I was told by the lawyers that there had been procedural irregularities at his February 19th bail hearing. The Justice of the Peace had remanded Mr. Piugattuk without first hearing the submissions of the lawyers. This is an error in law. [3] I agreed that it was appropriate that I review the order made by the Justice of the Peace on February 19th.

I held the bail review, and I reserved my decision. These are my reasons for decision. A.

Canada’s bail law [ 6 ] Everyone charged in Canada with a criminal offence is entitled “not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.” [4] [ 7 ] There is a “ladder” of increasingly more restrictive forms of bail available depending upon the circumstances of the offence and the offender. [5] In appropriate cases, the Court may deny and remand the charged person into custody pending his trial. [ 8 ] A court may only deny bail if the prosecution establishes that pre-trial detention is necessary for one of three reasons: 1.

If detention is required to ensure the attendance of the accused at trial (the “primary ground”); 2. In the interest of public safety including whether there is a substantial likelihood that the accused, if released, will reoffend or interfere with the administration of justice (the “secondary ground”); or 3. If detention is necessary to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice (the “tertiary ground”). [6]

[ 9 ] I will say more about the three grounds of detention in my analysis. [ 10 ] Where, as here, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has breached his bail conditions, the onus is on the accused. In other words, the accused must satisfy the Court that his detention is not necessary and that he ought to be granted reasonable bail. [7] II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Defence [ 11 ] Defence Counsel says there has been a material change of circumstances in Mr. Piugattuk’s life. Mr. Piugattuk now has a bail plan which would see him released under the supervision of his parents as sureties. B.

The Crown [ 12 ] The prosecutor urged the Court to deny bail to Mr. Piugattuk on the secondary and tertiary grounds. III. ISSUE [ 13 ] There are is one issue which I must decide: has Mr. Piugattuk established that his continued detention is not necessary under either the secondary or tertiary grounds? IV. ANALYSIS [ 14 ] Risk assessment is the fundamental consideration at this pre-trial stage. [8] A. The secondary ground for detention [ 15 ] Mr. Piugattuk has not met his onus on the secondary ground. In other words, there is indeed a substantial likelihood that Mr. Piugattuk will reoffend if he is granted bail.

I have come to this conclusion for the following reasons: 1. Mr.

Piugattuk has a serious, related, and recent criminal record, including six violent crimes and four breaches of court orders: a. 2009 – dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault and uttering threats – suspended sentence and probation; b. 2010 – aggravated assault, breach of probation – jail for three years and six months, 10 year firearms prohibition order; c. 2013 – assault, assault on a peace office, 2 breaches of probation, mischief – 18 months conditional sentence; d. 2016 – assault, 90 days jail and probation; e. 2019 – assault causing bodily harm, bail breach – 153 days in jail time-served and probation. 2.

Mr. Piugattuk is charged with pointing a firearm at a police officer who had responded to a report of possible domestic violence. Upon Mr. Piugattuk’s arrest, the police discovered and seized six unlawfully stored and illegally possessed rifles. Mr. Piugattuk was intoxicated when he allegedly committed these offences; 3. Mr. Piugattuk has never had professional counselling for his substance abuse problems;

4. Mr. Piugattuk’s release plan would have him live with his parents. I was told his mother always keeps alcohol in the house, although she has said she does not want him to drink anymore; and 5. Mr. Piugattuk has already released on a Recognizance with a surety after a contested bail hearing. This is the most restrictive form of bail on the ladder. He must have known how precarious his continued freedom was in the circumstances. Still, he assaulted his partner- surety and sent her to the Health Centre where she needed four stitches to close the wound on her head. [ 16 ] Mr.

Piugattuk’s recent past behaviour is the best predictor of how he may be expected to behave in the future. The risk that he will reoffend is too great to permit his release again on these charges. B. The tertiary grounds for detention [ 17 ] Again, Mr. Piugattuk bears the legal onus, or the job of persuasion, to satisfy me that the public will not lose confidence in the justice system if he is released. To do so, he must address several aspects of the case. [9] I will discuss each one in turn. i. The apparent strength of the prosecution’s case [ 18 ] The prosecution’s principal witnesses are police officers. Mr.

Piugattuk surrendered himself to police shortly after the incident. The seized weapons were found in Mr. Piugattuk’s residence immediately after the incident. Mr. Piugattuk was bound by a 10-year firearms prohibition order. The prosecution has a strong case against Mr. Piugattuk. ii. The gravity of the offence [ 19 ] Cpl. Greg Tannahill testified that immediately after the he announced their entry, he saw Mr. Piugattuk pick up a rifle, deliberately load it and turn to point the rifle at him. The offence is extremely serious. iii.

The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used [ 20 ] Mr. Piugattuk’s common-law partner and young family were in the home when the incident happened. Mr. Piugattuk put their lives and those of the three attending police officers in grave risk. iv. The fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or a mandatory minimum jail term [ 21 ] Mr. Piugattuk is indeed subject to a lengthy jail term if he is convicted. (I note that this Court has already ruled mandatory minimum punishments to be unconstitutional. [10] ) v.

Other considerations [ 22 ] Mr. Piugattuk was subject to a 10-year firearm prohibition imposed at the time he was sentenced for aggravated assault. Despite the court order, the police found him in possession of six firearms – none of which were stored safely as required by law. [ 23 ] Mr. Piugattuk has already been trusted once to keep the public peace while on bail , and he failed to do so. [ 24 ] I must ask myself how an objective, reasonable and informed person would react if the Court were to release Mr. Piugattuk again. Mr. Piugattuk’s breach of his Recognizance was not merely technical in nature.

He assaulted and grievously wounded his own surety. The very firearm he is said to have pointed at Cpl. Tannahill was possessed by Mr. Piugattuk in flagrant violation of the prohibition order. Public confidence in the justice system would be shaken if I were to re-release Mr. Piugattuk.

[ 25 ] Furthermore, Mr. Piugattuk’s release would seriously undermine public confidence that the justice system takes firearm violence and breaches of court orders seriously. [ 26 ] Mr. Piugattuk has failed to meet his onus on the tertiary ground. I am satisfied that Mr. Piugattuk’s re-release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. V. CONCLUSION [ 27 ] For the reasons I have stated, Mr. Piugattuk’s application has failed on both the secondary and tertiary grounds of detention. [ 28 ] I deny Mr. Piugattuk’s request for pre-trial bail, and I remand him into custody. [ 29 ] Mr.

Piugattuk’s case will return to Assignment Court in Iqaluit on August 12, 2019. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 14th day of June, 2019 ___________________ Justice P. Bychok Nunavut Court of Justice