R. v. S.O., 2018 NLCA 62

S.O. (applicant/appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) (18/98) Indexed As: R. v. S.O. 2018 NLCA 62 3 C.A.N.L.R. 462 Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador Welsh J.A. November 20, 2018

Summary: The appellant in a criminal case, S.O., applied for judicial interim release pending appeal. Held: Application allowed, judicial interim release granted. Welsh J.A.: The test under

section 679 of the Criminal Code for granting judicial interim release pending appeal is met. The appeal is not frivolous. The appellant can be relied upon to surrender himself into custody if so required. His home is St. John’s; he has arrangements for a residence in place; he has no other criminal record; the offences were committed between 14 and 18 years ago when the appellant aged 14 to 17; and he complied with the conditions of his release pending trial. His detention pending disposition of the appeal is not necessary in the public interest.

While the offences are serious, they were committed many years ago when the appellant was a youth. In addition, the eight month custodial sentence would be served before the appeal could be disposed of. Counsel: Derek Hogan, for the appellant; Arnold Hussey Q.C., for the respondent. This application was heard and the following memorandum of disposition was filed on November 20, 2018 by Welsh J.A. ______________________________________________________________ Welsh J.A.: [ 1 ] This was an application by Mr. O. for judicial interim release pending the disposition of the appeal.

At the hearing, I granted the order subject to conditions. Following is a

summary of the factors considered in reaching this conclusion. [ 2 ] Having considered the submissions of counsel, I was satisfied that Mr. O. meets the criteria for judicial interim release pending disposition of the appeal. In reaching this conclusion I applied the three part test in

section 679 of the Criminal Code . I was satisfied that the appeal is not frivolous as contemplated by

section 679 . This was conceded by counsel. [ 3 ] I was satisfied that Mr. O. can be relied upon to surrender himself into custody if so required. Mr. O.’s home is St. John’s; he has arrangements for a residence in place; he has no criminal record; the offences were committed between 14 and 18 years ago when Mr. O. was a youth, aged 14 to 17; and he complied with the conditions of his release pending trial. Again, this portion of the analysis was conceded by counsel.

[ 4 ] Finally, I was satisfied that Mr. O.’s detention pending disposition of the appeal is not necessary in the public interest. While the offences are serious, they were committed many years ago when Mr. O. was a youth. The sentences imposed reflect that factor. In addition, the eight month custodial sentence would be served before the appeal could be disposed of, even if it was to be expedited. Again, this factor was conceded by counsel. [ 5 ] Accordingly, Mr. O.’s application for judicial interim release was granted. [ 6 ] Finally, I was satisfied that the draft order submitted by Mr.

O. and agreed to by the Crown provides for the appropriate conditions. [ 7 ] In the result, I ordered that Mr. O. be granted judicial interim release pending the disposition of his appeal, in accordance with the conditions as ordered. Application allowed.