r v. JERRY, 2022 QCCQ 264

R. c. Joinvil 2022 QCCQ 264 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-01-227275-218 DATE: January 17, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE HÉBERT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. JERRY JOINVIL Accused ______________________________________________________________________ REASONS REGARDING THE JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE APPLICATION [1] ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] Jerry Joinvil [2] is charged with the following offences: (

i) procuring a person to offer sexual services; (ii) receiving material benefit from sexual services; (iii) extortion; (iv) assault with a weapon; (

v) using an imitation firearm while committing an assault with a weapon; (vi) robbery; and (vii) possession of a prohibited weapon (brass knuckles). The first six offences were allegedly committed between December 6 th and December 8 th , 2021, and involved the plaintiff, K.E.D. The last offence, possession of a prohibited weapon, flows from the execution of a search warrant on December 16 th , 2021. [ 2 ] Joinvil is now seeking interim judicial release (“bail”) in relation to these offences.

The prosecution argues that Joinvil’s pre- trial detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court and for the protection or safety of the public. Joinvil argues that his detention is unnecessary. He proposes a release plan with strict conditions, guaranteed by a surety, Sheila Duvestil, and a deposit in an amount of $2,500 (later raised to $5,000) to be made by Duvestil.

He adds that detention conditions, amid the COVID-19 outbreak, are extremely difficult, to a point where they have become inhumane. [ 3 ] Before deciding if Joinvil’s pre-trial detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court or for the protection or safety of the public, the Court will have to decide on two preliminary questions. First, the prosecution argues that Joinvil bears the burden to show that his pre-trial detention is not necessary while Joinvil argues that the prosecution bears the burden of showing that his pre-trial detention is necessary.

Second, Joinvil argues that the COVID-19 outbreak and its impacts on the conditions of his detention, support his release on bail, thereby raising the question of the weight to be given to these factors when deciding if bail can be granted. [ 4 ] For the reasons set out in this decision, the Court finds that the prosecution bears the burden of showing that Joinvil’s pre-trial detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court or for the protection or safety of the public.

The Court also finds that the COVID- 19 outbreak and its impacts on the conditions of Joinvil’s detention are relevant factors to consider when assessing bail, albeit with limited weight in this case. [ 5 ] After taking into consideration all of the relevant factors, including the COVID-19 outbreak and its impacts, the Court finds that Joinvil’s pre-trial detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court and for the protection or safety of the public. ANALYSIS I. Factual background of the alleged offences [ 6 ] The facts that gave rise to the alleged offences can be summarized as follows.

K.E.D. and Joinvil communicated through Instagram. In the course of these communications, K.E.D. indicated that she had no place to stay. Joinvil offered to pick her up and have her stay with him and K.E.D. agreed. On December 6 th , 2021, K.E.D. was picked up by Joinvil, in a black Audi. While driving, Joinvil told K.E.D. that he was involved in street gangs and in drug trafficking. He made references to guns and to the fact that he had been involved in a murder. This scared K.E.D. [ 7 ] Joinvil brought K.E.D. to an apartment on Gouin Boulevard, where they had sex.

Joinvil then told K.E.D. that she would have to work for him by getting involved in fraud or prostitution. K.E.D. mentioned that she had been involved in prostitution before and that she had an internet account which allowed her to post offers for her sexual services. Joinvil provided K.E.D. with the money needed to post an ad offering her sexual services. K.E.D. managed the clients who replied to the ad.

[ 8 ] The next day, on December 7 th , 2021, K.E.D. provided sexual services to a client for $300. The client came to the apartment on Gouin, which only has one room. As a result, Joinvil had to leave the apartment before the arrival of the client but asked K.E.D. to report back to him. [ 9 ] The next day, on December 8 th , 2021, K.E.D. arranged to provide sexual services to a client in Laval for $450. Joinvil told K.E.D. to give the money she would make to his brother, who would drive her to Laval. Joinvil’s brother brought K.E.D. to the appointment in a black Audi.

When K.E.D. got back to the apartment on Gouin, Joinvil asked her for the money she had made. K.E.D. complied. Joinvil counted the money. He kept $500 and gave K.E.D. $200. Joinvil then told K.E.D. that he expected her to make $1,000 per day. [ 10 ] K.E.D. indicated that she wanted out and expressed her wish to use her phone. Joinvil hid the phone from her and grabbed a gun. He pointed the gun at K.E.D.’s head, applying pressure to her temple, and told K.E.D. that he hoped that she would not call the police. K.E.D. screamed and Joinvil placed his hand on her mouth. K.E.D. could breathe, but it was difficult.

Joinvil told her to leave but refused to give back her phone. When Joinvil turned his back on K.E.D., she left the apartment, ran to a convenience store and asked the clerk to call 911. Surveillance cameras in the hallway of the apartment building and in the convenience store recorded K.E.D. fleeing the apartment and seeking the clerk’s help in the convenience store.

In addition to this, K.E.D.’s statement to the 911 operator was recorded. [ 11 ] Surveillance cameras in the apartment building show that after K.E.D. left the apartment, Joinvil got out of the apartment with what is presumed to be K.E.D.’s belongings, took the elevator, went to the garage, came back to the apartment, left with more stuff, threw stuff in a recycling bin in the garage, hid behind a car and eventually left by the garage door. [ 12 ] When the police arrived at the convenience store, they met with K.E.D. who explained the situation.

During the police intervention, a police officer noted that a black Audi was parked in front of the apartment building. The driver of the car was identified as being Joinvil’s brother. At about the same time, a resident of the apartment building saw a black Audi arrive and park near the building. After 5 or 10 minutes, he saw a black man getting into the Audi with bags. The Audi then left. [ 13 ] The police investigation showed that the apartment on Gouin had been rented by Duvestil.

The week before the alleged offences, the apartment manager called the phone number given as a contact information when the apartment was rented because the rent was due. A man answered and came to pay the rent, in cash. [ 14 ] The police began an investigation to locate Joinvil. At the SAAQ, Joinvil’s address was at his mother’s house on Lalande Boulevard. However, the police investigation led them to an apartment building on Pierrefonds Boulevard. On December 14 th , 2021, the police noted that a black Audi was parked in the parking space of apartment 6.

The next day, a surveillance operation showed that Joinvil was at that apartment. [ 15 ] The police sought an arrest warrant for Joinvil and eventually an entry warrant for the Pierrefonds apartment. They also sought search warrants for the Gouin and the Pierrefonds apartments, as well as the Audi. [ 16 ] On December 16 th , 2021, Joinvil was arrested in the Pierrefonds apartment. He was wearing some of the clothes that he wore on December 8 th , 2021, when he was caught by surveillance cameras. When the search warrant was executed at the Pierrefonds apartment, K.E.D.’s cellphone was found.

A woman named Victoria told the police that she has lived in the Pierrefonds apartment with her boyfriend, Joinvil, since August 2021 and that she was two-months pregnant with Joinvil’s child. [ 17 ] In the Gouin apartment, the police found: a bag with what appears to be a woman’s belongings; documents bearing K.E.D.’s name; an amazon box addressed to Joinvil; an invoice from a dentist addressed to Joinvil; what appears to be a small quantity of cocaine; and, what appears to be 19 pills of methamphetamine.

In a safe in the apartment, the police found an American passport belonging to Joinvil, a gun holster, and 3 bullets. [ 18 ] In the Gouin apartment, the police also found brass knuckles. Thus, the seventh count filed against Joinvil, possession of a prohibited weapon, flows from the execution of the search warrant at the Gouin apartment. [ 19 ] On December 17 th , 2021, Duvestil told the police that she was trying to find Joinvil, her boyfriend. She said that she was six- month pregnant with Joinvil’s child and that Joinvil does not work and that he has nothing in his name. II.

Relevant legal principles applicable to bail [ 20 ]

Section 11

e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right of an accused person not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. This right is an essential element of our criminal justice system. It entrenches the effect of the presumption of innocence at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process and safeguards the liberty of the person charged with an offence [3] . [ 21 ] The expression “just cause” used at s. 11

e) of the Charter refers to the circumstances for which bail is denied [4] . In that regard, s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code states that the pre-trial detention of an accused person is justifiable if it is necessary: (

i) to ensure his attendance in court; (ii) for the protection or safety of the public; or (iii) to maintain confidence in the administration of Justice. These are the only grounds for which pre-trial detention is justified. [ 22 ] In general, the prosecution has the burden to show that pre-trial detention is necessary pursuant to at least one of the grounds listed at s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code . That being said, there are exceptions, provided for at s. 515 (6) of the Criminal Code .

If one of these exceptions is applicable, the burden shifts and the accused person must show why his detention is not justified pursuant to the grounds listed at s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code . [ 23 ] The expression “reasonable bail” used at s. 11

e) of the Charter refers to the terms of bail, including its monetary component and its other conditions [5] . In that regard, ss. 493.1 and 515 (1) to (3) of the Criminal Code clearly establish that release at the earliest

reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances, is the rule. This is called the “ladder principle” and it requires that the court not order a more onerous form of release unless the prosecution shows why a less onerous form is inappropriate [6] . An unconditional release on an undertaking is the default position when granting bail [7] . [ 24 ] Bail conditions must only be imposed to the extent that they are necessary to address concerns flowing from one of the three grounds for detention, which are enumerated at s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code [8] .

Bail conditions cannot be used to change an accused person’s behaviour or to punish this accused person [9] . Rather, bail conditions are intended to be particularized standards of behaviour designed to curtail the risks posed by an accused person with regard to the grounds listed at s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code [10] . [ 25 ] Bail conditions can include monetary conditions, which can be in the form of a cash deposit or a recognizance to pay a sum of money if bail conditions are breached. Deciding on the proper amount for bail involves competing interests.

The amount should achieve its coercive purpose and give the accused person a reason to abide by his bail conditions.

Yet, this amount should not be outside the reach of the accused person or his surety, so as to render the condition unattainable [11] .Thus, before imposing monetary conditions, the court must inquire into the financial situation of the accused person to assess his ability to pay [12] and to ensure that the amount will achieve its coercive purpose. [ 26 ] In that regard, a cash deposit and a recognizance are similar in that they both give an accused person a financial incentive to abide by his bail conditions.

A recognizance is functionally equivalent to a cash bail and has the same coercive effect [13] . [ 27 ] Bail conditions may also include a surety. The surety’s obligation is to ensure the accused person’s presence in court and to ensure that the accused person abides by his bail conditions. As the surety must “supervise” the accused person, it is important to know if the relationship between the surety and the accused person is one which will realistically permit the infusion of the surety’s obligations and their potential enforcement.

A surety who has no effective control over the accused person will probably not be a good candidate. That being said, beyond having some kind of control over the accused person, a surety must also be prepared to exercise that control [14] . [ 28 ] Thus, the surety must be suitable. There are no specific criteria that govern the suitability of sureties. The question of suitability must be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all of the circumstances.

The approach must be functional, that is the assessment of suitability should be derived from what the law expects of sureties and whether the surety can realistically discharge their obligations and willingly exercise the powers of a surety [15] . [ 29 ] In short, when assessing if bail can be granted, the court must give primary consideration to the release of the accused person, at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances.

Pre-trial detention is the exception, and it is limited to a situation where it is necessary, pursuant to the grounds listed at s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code . IV. The first question: where does the burden lie? [ 30 ] As mentioned above, in certain circumstances, the accused person bears the burden of showing that his pre-trial detention is not justified pursuant to the grounds listed at s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code . [ 31 ] In the matter at hand, the prosecution argued that the burden should shift upon Joinvil, relying on two of the exceptions provided for at s. 515 (6) of the Criminal Code .

Thus, before assessing whether Joinvil’s pre-trial detention is necessary, the Court will have to decide whether the burden lies with the prosecution or with Joinvil. Seeking bail for an indictable offence committed while being at large after having been released in respect of another indictable offence [ 32 ] Section 515 (6) (a) (

i) of the Criminal Code states that the accused person who seeks bail after having been charged with an indictable offence that is alleged to have been committed while being at large after being released in respect of another indictable offence pursuant to the provisions of

Part XVI of the Criminal Code , bears the burden of convincing the court that his detention is not justified. [ 33 ] In the matter at hand, the evidence shows that Joinvil had a pending case in Regina, Saskatchewan, in December 2021, when he allegedly committed the offences for which he is now charged and seeking bail. Relying on this pending case, the prosecution argued that Joinvil bears the burden of showing that his detention is not justified. [ 34 ] As evidence of this pending case, the prosecution filed an appearance notice served upon Joinvil by an SPVM police officer on October 5, 2021.

This appearance notice mentions that Joinvil is alleged to have committed the following offences: identity theft; identity fraud; and, fraud. Pursuant to this appearance notice, Joinvil must attend court in Regina on November 24 th , 2021. [ 35 ] The service of an appearance notice, for offences allegedly committed in Regina, by a Montreal police officer, leads the Court to the conclusion that on October 5 th , 2021, Joinvil had an outstanding arrest warrant pending against him in Regina. However, the procedural nature of the warrant is unknown. A warrant can be issued at different stages of the proceeding.

For example, it can be issued as a mean to compel the first appearance of an accused person or it can be issued to compel the appearance of an accused person who, after having appeared before a court, missed a subsequent court date. [ 36 ] In addition to this, the service of an appearance notice by a police officer does not necessarily mean that the person was “released” pursuant to the provisions of

Part XVI of the Criminal Code . An appearance notice can be issued in various circumstances. Sections 498 and 499 of the Criminal Code are clear, if a person has been arrested without a warrant or pursuant to the issuance of an endorsed warrant, the peace officer can release that person from custody by issuing an appearance notice. In such circumstances, one could certainly argue that the person who received the appearance notice was released from custody pursuant to

Part XVI of the Criminal Code , which includes ss. 498 and 499 of the Criminal Code . However, an appearance notice can also be issued by a peace officer even if the person has not been arrested, as provided for by s. 497 of the Criminal Code . Can it be said, in such a situation, that the person was released from custody pursuant to

Part XVI of the Criminal Code ? [ 37 ] During the bail hearing, there was little evidence tendered regarding the status of the ongoing proceeding in Regina. The Court

knows that the proceeding is still pending; that Joinvil missed a court date in December 2021; and that another court date was scheduled. In short, the Court does not know if Joinvil has appeared yet or if his appearance has been postponed. [ 38 ] In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it does not have sufficient information about the status of the ongoing Regina proceeding to conclude that Joinvil committed the offences for which he is now charged, while being at large after being released in respect of another indictable offence pursuant to the provisions of

Part XVI of the Criminal Code . The exception set out by s. 515 (6) (a) (

i) of the Criminal Code has thus not been met. Seeking bail for an alleged robbery or extortion [ 39 ] Section 515 (6) (a) (viii) of the Criminal Code also places the burden of showing that detention is not justified upon the shoulder of the accused person who seeks bail after having been charged with an indictable offence pursuant to ss. 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion) of the Criminal Code , which is alleged to have been committed with a firearm. [ 40 ] In the matter at hand, Joinvil is charged with having committed a robbery pursuant to s. 344 (1) (

b) of the Criminal Code and having committed an extortion pursuant to s. 346 (1) (1.1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . The facts from which these offences flow refer to the use of a firearm by Joinvil against K.E.D., but no firearm was recovered by police. In such circumstances, does the exception provided for at s. 515 (6) (a) (viii) of the Criminal Code applies? [ 41 ]

Section 343 of the Criminal Code defines the offence of a robbery. This definition shows that a robbery can be committed in different ways: (

a) by using violence or threats to prevent or overcome resistance when stealing; (

b) by wounding, beating or using violence when stealing, or immediately before or after having stolen; (

c) by assaulting with the intent to steal; or (

d) by stealing while armed with an offensive weapon or an imitation thereof.

Section 344 of the Criminal Code provides for the various sentences that can be imposed for robbery. These sentence vary depending on the circumstances of the alleged offence. In that regard, ss. 344 (1) (

a) and (a.1.) of the Criminal Code provide the sentences applicable to a robbery committed with the use of a firearm, whether it be a prohibited, or a restricted or a firearm. Section 344 (1) (

b) of the Criminal Code provides for the sentence applicable to a robbery committed “in any other case”. [ 42 ] The information issued by the prosecution charges Joinvil with a robbery committed against K.E.D., pursuant to s. 344 (1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , as opposed to ss. 344 (1) (

a) or ( a.1 ) of the Criminal Code . From this, the Court concludes that Joinvil is not charged for having committed a robbery with a firearm, even if K.E.D. referred to the use of a firearm in her declaration to the police. [ 43 ] The same logic applies to the extortion offence, which can also be committed in different ways and for which various sentences can be imposed depending on the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. Again, the information issued by the prosecution charges Joinvil with an extortion pursuant to s. 346 (1) (1.1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , as opposed to an extortion during which a firearm was used pursuant to ss. 346 (1) (1.1) (

a) or ( a.1 ) of the Criminal Code . [ 44 ] Consequently, given the description of the offences of robbery and extortion included in the information issued against Joinvil, the exception provided for at s. 515 (6) (a) (viii) of the Criminal Code is not triggered. Conclusions on the first question: where does the burden lies? [ 45 ] In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the prosecution has the burden to show that Joinvil’s detention is necessary pursuant to s. 515 (10) of the Criminal Code . V.

The second question: the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak [ 46 ] Joinvil has been detained since his arrest, on December 16 th , 2021. The fact that there is an outgoing COVID-19 outbreak in the detention center where he is detained is not contested. At his bail hearing, Joinvil testified on the conditions of his detention, explaining that he has not had a shower in 16 days, that he has no set of clean clothes, that he is confined to his cell 24 hours a day, that he sometimes only gets two meals a day and that access to a phone is difficult.

In short, Joinvil argues that in assessing his request for bail, the Court should consider the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak and the fact that the conditions in which he is detained are inhumane. [ 47 ] The current COVID-19 outbreak is a factor that can be taken into account when assessing if the detention of an accused person is necessary [16] . The weight of this factor will depend upon the particular circumstances of each case.

For example, this factor may play a role when an accused person who’s documented health conditions place him in a vulnerable group that is more likely to suffer complications if he contracts COVID-19 [17] . That being said, an ongoing outbreak will rarely be decisive in itself [18] . Indeed, the sole fact that there is an outbreak is not, in itself, a ground on which to give bail to an accused person who will abscond or who will reoffend and jeopardized the safety of the public [19] . [ 48 ] The same logic applies to the conditions in which inmates are detained as a result of the ongoing outbreak.

While these conditions are far from what they should be, it is not, in itself, a reason to give bail to an accused person who will abscond or who will reoffend and jeopardized the safety of the public. In addition, the bail hearing is, in most circumstances, not the proper procedural vehicle to seek a review of the measures implemented by the detention center in response to COVID-19 [20] . [ 49 ] In the matter at hand, there is no evidence that Joinvil suffers from health issues that place him at risk to suffer complications if he contracts COVID-19.

While the conditions in which Joinvil is presently detained are very difficult, they seem to be derived from the management of the outgoing outbreak. In light of the foregoing, the Court will consider the current COVID-19 outbreak and the difficult conditions in which Joinvil is detained as one of the relevant factors to take into consideration when assessing his bail request, albeit with limited weight. VI. The third question: is Joinvil’s pre-trial detention necessary? [ 50 ] In the matter at hand, the parties agreed, rightly so, to limit their arguments to the first two grounds provided for by s. 515 (10) of

the Criminal Code . Thus, the Court must decide if Joinvil’s pre-trial detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court or if it is necessary for the protection or safety of the public. The Court will begin its analysis by assessing the factor attached to protection and safety of the public. Is Joinvil’s detention necessary for the protection or the safety of the public? [ 51 ] Section 515 (10) (

b) of the Criminal Code states that the pre-trial detention of an accused person is justified where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including any substantial likelihood that the accused person will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice. [ 52 ] The wording of this

section is clear: bail is not denied for an accused person who poses a risk of committing an offence while on bail. Bail will be denied only if there is a “substantial likelihood” that the accused person will commit a criminal offence and only if this substantial likelihood endangers the protection or the safety of the public [21] . [ 53 ] In that regard, one must keep in mind that one objective of the criminal justice system is to stop criminal behaviour.

Obviously, the bail system does not function properly if the accused person commits crimes while on bail and thereby endangers the protection or the safety of the public. Bail must be on the condition that the accused person will not engage in such criminal activity pending trial [22] . [ 54 ] Assessing the future dangerousness of an accused person is thus an integral part of the analysis to be done to decide if detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public. In the case Rondeau v.

R. [23] , the Quebec Court of Appeal listed the following 8 factors that must be considered when making this assessment: (1) the nature of the offence, (2) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, (3) the likelihood of a conviction (4) the degree of involvement of the accused, (5) the relationship between the accused and the victim, (6) the profile of the accused including his lifestyle, employment, previous convictions, family environment, mental states …, (7) the accused post-offence conduct and (8) the danger for the community of releasing the accused on bail [24] . [ 55 ] No factor is in itself determinative.

Rather, one must weigh the applicable factors, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances and decide if there is a substantial likelihood that if he is released from custody, the accused person will commit a criminal offence and endanger the protection or the safety of the public [25] . [ 56 ] In the matter at hand, the Court will begin by assessing the factors that relate to the nature of the alleged offences, the circumstances in which the offences were allegedly committed, the degree of Joinvil’s involvement and the nature of the relationship between Joinvil and K.E.D., as those factors can be assessed simultaneously. [ 57 ] The objective seriousness of an offence is reflected in the punishment that attaches to it, that is its maximum sentence.

In that regard, some of the offences allegedly committed by Joinvil are of the outmost serious nature. Indeed, extortion and robbery are offences that are punishable by imprisonment for life; using an imitation firearm while committing an offence and procuring a person to offer sexual services are offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years; and, assault with a weapon is an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years. [ 58 ] The circumstances in which these offences were allegedly committed are also serious.

Indeed, the evidence shows that K.E.D. was vulnerable, having no place to stay, when Joinvil offered to take her in. While driving K.E.D. to his apartment, Joinvil began to set the tone for the relationship: he referred to him being involved with street gangs, drug trafficking, guns and a murder. These comments had the intended impact upon K.E.D., who said to the police that she was scared. At first, K.E.D. complied with Joinvil’s request that she makes money by offering her sexual services for consideration.

While K.E.D. used her own account to offer her sexual services, the evidence shows that she did so after Joinvil asked her to make money and after he provided her with the money needed to place the ad. That being said, as soon as K.E.D. refused to comply with Joinvil’s request and expressed the wish to leave, Joinvil became violent. He pointed a gun at her head and told her not to call the police. The fact that the event occurred over a few days does not mitigate the seriousness of these alleged offences. [ 59 ] The degree of alleged involvement by Joinvil is high.

He is the one who set the tone for the relationship; who tried to exert control over K.E.D.; who requested that K.E.D. make money; and, who paid for the ad placed by K.E.D. to offer her sexual services. Joinvil left his apartment so that K.E.D. could meet a client but asked K.E.D. to report back to him. He provided the car and the driver that allowed K.E.D. to meet a client in Laval. He asked K.E.D. to give him the money that she had made. When K.E.D. refused to comply with his demand, he took her phone, thereby preventing her from calling someone and assaulted her with a weapon.

The fact that K.E.D. had, in the past, offered her sexual services for consideration does not mitigate Joinvil’s moral culpability. The same can be said for the fact that K.E.D. posted the ad on her already existing account or that she communicated with old clients, if she did so as a result of Joinvil’s actions. [ 60 ] As for the relationship between Joinvil and K.E.D., the circumstances in which the offences were allegedly committed show that it is tainted by control.

In short, Joinvil wanted to exploit K.E.D. for personal gain. [ 61 ] Thus, the Court finds that the offences allegedly committed by Joinvil are of serious nature, that the circumstances in which these offences were allegedly committed are serious, Joinvil’s degree of involvement is high and the relationship between Joinvil and K.E.D. was one of control over someone who was, at the time, vulnerable. [ 62 ] The next factor to consider, the third factor, is the likelihood of a conviction.

First, with respect to the offence of possessing a prohibited weapon, namely the brass knuckles, the likelihood of a conviction is strong, if not overwhelming. The evidence that the apartment in which the brass knuckles were found was occupied by Joinvil is overwhelming.

While it is true that the apartment was rented by Duvestil, the following evidence shows that the apartment was occupied by Joinvil: a man paid the rent; Joinvil is seen on a surveillance camera getting in and out of the apartment on December 8 th , 2021; an amazon box and a dentist invoice addressed to Joinvil were found in the apartment; an American passport issued to Joinvil was found in a safe in the apartment. In addition to this, at the bail

hearing, Duvestil admitted having rented this apartment for Joinvil. [ 63 ] Second, with respect to the offences of extortion, assault with a weapon, robbery and use of an imitation firearm, the likelihood of a conviction exists. As is often the case in similar situations to this, the evidence rests on the testimony of the alleged victim, K.E.D. That being said, there are elements that tend to confirm K.E.D.’s version of events.

The footage from the surveillance camera in the hallway shows K.E.D. running out of the apartment while the footage from the convenience store shows her seeking help at the convenience store. Documents with K.E.D.’s name were found in the apartment. K.E.D.’s phone was found when Joinvil was arrested. While a gun was not found at the apartment, the fact that a gun holster and bullets were found tends to confirm K.E.D.’s version of events. The post-offence behaviour adopted by Joinvil may also be of relevance in this regard.

For all these reasons, the Court assesses the likelihood of a conviction, in relation to these offences, as being strong. [ 64 ] At this early stage of the proceeding, the fact that K.E.D. somehow got the money back, that she could not remember Joinvil’s name or that she hesitated when asked to identify him on a photo line-up, do not significantly impact the likelihood of a conviction.

The same can be said of the alleged contradiction contained in K.E.D.’s statement regarding the events that preceded her leaving the apartment or the alleged lack of credibility of her statement that Joinvil wanted her to earn $1,000 per day. [ 65 ] Third and lastly, the likelihood of a conviction with respect to the offences of procuring K.E.D. to offer sexual services and receiving material benefit from K.E.D.’s sexual services also rests on K.E.D.’s testimony. Elements in her declaration support these two charges.

For example: Joinvil’s statement that he was involved with street gangs scared her; Joinvil asked her to make money for him; Joinvil paid for the ad; when she met her first client, Joinvil asked her to report back to him; Joinvil arranged for her travel to Laval to meet her second client; Joinvil asked her to give him the money that she had made, counted it, kept $500 and gave her back $200; Joinvil asked her to make $1,000 a day; and, Joinvil was violent when she protested. As stated above, K.E.D.’s testimony is confirmed by various pieces of evidence.

Thus, the likelihood of a conviction exists even if it is always a challenge for the prosecution to prove guilt in relation to these two offences. That being said, the fact that K.E.D. had previously been involved in prostitution, the fact that she posted the ad and the fact that she contacted her old clients do not, in themselves, disprove these offences. [ 66 ] In

summary, at this early stage of the proceeding, the evidence against Joinvil appears strong and the probability of a conviction, while it varies depending on the different offences, can be said to also be strong. [ 67 ] The next two factors to consider are Joinvil’s profile and his post-offence conduct. These factors can be assessed together. [ 68 ] Joinvil is 26 years old. He has not finished high school and was unemployed, on welfare, at the time of his arrest. [ 69 ] Joinvil has prior convictions. His first conviction was ten years ago, in 2011, when he was sixteen.

Between 2011 and 2019, he has been convicted of robbery, theft of less than $5,000, possession of property obtained by crime, possession of an identity document, identity fraud, simple possession of drugs, mischief and two simple assaults. He has also been convicted on six charges of breach, either for having breached his bail conditions or his probation conditions. His last conviction dates back to December 2019, and relates to a breach of probation for which he was charged in December 2017.

His record shows that he was convicted for crimes of dishonesty and that his criminality is attached to gain. [ 70 ] As stated before, Joinvil has a pending case in Regina, Saskatchewan, in which he is charged with identity theft, identity fraud and fraud. That is not the first time that Joinvil is charged for offences committed outside Quebec. In 2018, he was convicted for the possession of an identity document and identity fraud in Winnipeg, Manitoba. [ 71 ] A closer look at how Joinvil behaved over the years 2016 and 2019, while he had pending cases, shows a pattern of disobeying court orders.

Indeed, in February 2016, Joinvil appeared before the court in a file in which he was charged with mischief and two counts of assault. He was denied bail and a few days later, he plead guilty to these charges. After having entered his guilty plea, Joinvil was granted bail. In October 2016, he was sentenced for mischief and two assaults.

He received a suspended sentence with a three-year probation pursuant to which he had to perform 240 hours of community work. [ 72 ] On September 2 nd , 2016, while he was on bail awaiting his sentence in the mischief file, he was arrested and charged for simple possession of drugs and for having breached two of his bail conditions. He was granted bail in this new file, on the condition that he deposits $250. On November 30 th , 2016, less than a month after having been sentenced in the mischief file, and approximately two months after having been granted bail, he did not attend court. A bench warrant was issued.

Joinvil was arrested and on January 16 th , 2017, he appeared before the court. On that same day, Joinvil also appeared in a new file in which he was charged for having, again, breached his bail conditions. On December 31 st , 2017, he pled guilty to all the charges that were pending against him. He was sentenced to one day of imprisonment, taking into account 23 days of pre-trial detention. [ 73 ] A few months later, in April 2018, a summons was issued against Joinvil.

He was charged with having breached the condition of his probation, as he had failed to perform his 240 hours of community services within the required time frame. On July 30 th , 2018, the summons was changed to an arrest warrant. In December 2018, he appeared before the court. The file was postponed to May 2019. Joinvil did not attend court and thus, a bench warrant was issued. The bench warrant was executed in November 2019 at which time Joinvil’s bail was cancelled.

He remained detained and eventually pled guilty to this offence. [ 74 ] When questioned by his lawyer during the bail hearing, Joinvil testified that if he were to be released, he would live with Duvestil, his girlfriend for the last two years, her three children and her niece. He has a great relationship with Duvestil and her kids, with whom he has lived and whom he was seeing at least 3 to 4 times a week before his arrest. He added that Duvestil has a positive impact on him, that she motivates him to do better and that she has helped him in the past.

She has thus been a great girlfriend to him, for the past two years. Answers provided by Joinvil to questions asked by the prosecution and by the Court, raised questions about the nature of Joinvil relationship with Duvestil in the months before his arrest. For example, Joinvil stated that between August and November 2021, he lived with Victoria, who is two-months pregnant with his child and in June and July 2021, he lived with a previous girlfriend. It is only in cross-examination that he mentioned the fact that he and Duvestil had taken a break from their relationship in the months that

preceded his arrest. [ 75 ] When questioned by his lawyer, Joinvil testified that if he were to be released, he would get a job and work to put money aside to start a car rental company. Getting a job, through an agency, would be easy for him. He has done so in the past. As for the rental car company, he began taking the necessary steps to start the company. Specifically, he has been paying his tickets, to get his licence back. Answers provided by Joinvil to questions asked by the prosecution painted a very different picture of the situation. The last time that Joinvil held a job was in January 2020.

He quit that job after having worked approximately a month and has since been on welfare. When asked why he quit this job, Joinvil basically answered that he quit to pay his tickets, an answer which simply does not make any sense and which he could not explain when further questioned on this subject. [ 76 ] In cross-examination, Joinvil was questioned about his financial situation. He explained having been on welfare since quitting his job in January 2020. At first, he received $750 per month from welfare but that amount was later lowered to $650 a month.

When asked how he could provide for himself and pay for the $1,100 rent of the apartment on Gouin, he answered that he paid $600 for the rent and that Duvestil provided the balance. When asked how he could pay his tickets, and provide for himself if he was only receiving $650 from welfare, he mentioned that Duvestil helped him pay his tickets. [ 77 ] In short, and at best, Joinvil’s testimony lacked transparency and sincerity.

The picture that he painted, of a man who has been with the same girlfriend for two years and who could get a job as soon as he is released on bail because he has done so in the past, simply crumbled in cross-examination. His answers on his financial situation were vague and when pressed for further information, he would simply answer that Duvestil or someone else, helped him. It looked as though he was ducking those questions. [ 78 ] This lack of transparency and sincerity has a direct impact on the Court’s assessment of the sincerity of Joinvil’s undertaking to comply with his bail conditions.

It also casts a doubt on his assertion that he now takes criminal proceedings seriously. This, coupled with Joinvil’s past behaviour when out on bail, brings to the Court to conclude that Joinvil is simply not trust worthy. The Court does not believe him when he says that he will abide by his bail conditions. [ 79 ] As for Joinvil’s post-offence conduct, it shows a man who, immediately after K.E.D. fled the apartment, threw stuff out and left by the garage door, as opposed to the front door of the building.

His post-offence behaviour tends to confirm the Court’s assessment regarding Joinvil’s profile. [ 80 ] The last factor to consider is the danger that Joinvil’s bail poses for the community. Without repeating what was previously said, the alleged offences that Joinvil faces involved control of a person who was, at the time, vulnerable. It also involves violence and, according to K.E.D.’s statement, the use of a firearm. When the search warrant was executed at the apartment on Gouin, a gun holster and bullets were found, as well as brass knuckles.

These facts, coupled with Joinvil’s past behaviour when on bail, show that Joinvil’s bail poses a serious risk to the safety of the community. [ 81 ] Trust is of primary importance in the bail process. The bail system does not function properly if an accused person commits crimes while on bail. Thus, the accused person’s undertaking to abide by his bail conditions is of outmost importance. [ 82 ] As mentioned above, the Court does not believe Joinvil when he says that he will abide by his bail conditions. Trust is therefore not present. But there is more to add.

The Court does not believe Joinvil when he says that he will find work and provide for his needs. The truth is that Joinvil has not held a job in the last two years.

There is thus a substantial risk that he resorts to crime to provide for his needs, as he has done so in the past and thereby endangers the protection and safety of the public [26] . [ 83 ] In conclusion, when weighing all of the applicable factors, and after having taken into account all of the relevant circumstances, the Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood that if he is released from custody, Joinvil will commit a criminal offence and thereby endanger the protection or the safety of the public. [ 84 ] The next question to address is whether the release plan proposed by Joinvil sufficiently mitigates the risks that he poses to the protection and the safety of the public.

In that regard, his release plan includes a surety and a cash deposit. [ 85 ] Duvestil testified at the bail hearing [27] . She is a specialized educator and makes approximately $40,000 a year. She does not have a criminal record. She lives with her three young children, and she is acting as a foster parent to her niece. As a foster parent, she receives approximately $3,000 from the government. She is six-month pregnant with Joinvil’s child. [ 86 ] Duvestil’s and Joinvil’s relationship began in early January 2020, when he was released from detention and came to live at her house.

At first, it was a helping relationship. Joinvil had friends whom Duvestil considered to be bad influences. Joinvil was not working and could not find his place in society. She helped him with these issues. Then, their relationship changed and they became romantically involved. In April or May 2021, they decided to take a break. They were still on good terms. Joinvil moved out of Duvestil’s house approximately in June 2021, but they kept in touch by communicating every day. They were still close, enough for Duvestil to know what he was doing.

When asked how she knew, she answered that he would tell her what he was doing and that she trusted him. [ 87 ] In November 2021, Duvestil rented the apartment on Gouin, for Joinvil. She went to that apartment every week and sometimes slept there. When asked if she visited the apartment in December 2021, during the period when the offences were allegedly committed, she answered that she did not.

When crossed-examined about what Joinvil was doing when he was living at the apartment, she recognized that he was, amongst other things, spending time with his friends, the ones that she considers a bad influence. [ 88 ] With respect to the efforts that they made to find a job for Joinvil, Duvestil explained that Joinvil held a job at FedEx for one day, but that he was fired because he had a criminal record. She added that during the month before his arrest, she helped him apply for approximately 10 jobs. When questioned further, she explained that these jobs were for delivery men.

She had to admit that Joinvil could not get these jobs because he did not have a driver’s licence. When asked to explain why they were applying to a job that Joinvil could not get, she answered that they were applying in advance, essentially taking the lead. [ 89 ] Duvestil, who owns a car, rented, on occasions, the black Audi, at a cost of $400 per week. When asked why she rented the car,

she said that she likes luxury. When pressed further on this issue, she recognized that Joinvil, who had no driver’s licence, had a set of keys for the car but explains that it was because she often forgot them. When asked further questions, she said she could not tell if Joinvil drove the Audi to Victoria’s apartment (the Audi was parked at Victoria’s apartment on the day Joinvil was arrested) because she was not with him at that time. She finally admitted that she knew that Joinvil was driving even though he did not have a driver’s licence. [ 90 ] Duvestil explained that Joinvil is very important to her.

She provides him with stability and trusts him. She testified that she was willing to refinance her house to start their rental car company. When asked how she felt when she learned that Victoria was pregnant with Joinvil’s child, she answered that she had no reaction. [ 91 ] When asked if Joinvil was a member of a street gang, she quickly answered that he was not. She then admitted that Joinvil was in a rap video and that she had seen the video.

When she was pressed to give details regarding the content of the video, specifically, the fact that the lyrics referred to drug trafficking, she answered that she did not listen to the lyrics as rap is not her style of music. When asked further questions about the video, she said that this is what rappers sing about in music video, ducking the questions. [ 92 ] Duvestil testified that she was willing to “supervise” Joinvil and to denounce him, should he breach one of his bail conditions.

She initially explained that she was willing to deposit an amount of $2,500, from her savings, because she was convinced that Joinvil would abide by his bail conditions. When asked why she was convinced that Joinvil would abide by his bail conditions, she answered that she was relying on the progress that he had made since his release from detention in early 2020. [ 93 ] This last statement lacked credibility. Needless to say, that the evidence tends to show that Joinvil did not make progress. Duvestil wanted to help Joinvil get away from the bad influence of his friends and she wanted to help him to get a job.

The reality is that in December 2021, at the time of his arrest, Joinvil was still seeing the same friends and was still unemployed. Over the two-year period that Duvestil helped Joinvil, he worked for one day, at FedEx. [ 94 ] When the evidence was reopened, Duvestil testified that she was willing to deposit an amount of $5,000 [28] , as opposed to the initially offered amount of $2,500. She explained that she had initially offered to deposit $2,500 because this was the amount that felt “comfortable” to her.

However, after the bail hearing, she had discussions with Joinvil and they came to the conclusion that it would be preferable to offer a more substantial cash deposit. When asked when these conversations occurred or whom suggested that more money should be offered, she replied that she could not remember, thereby, leaving the questions unanswered. As a result of these discussions, she came up with the additional $1,500, which approximately represents the amount of money she gets on her paycheck. [ 95 ] Duvestil’s testimony after the evidence was reopened raised additional issues.

When he testified, Joinvil explained that he wanted to start a car rental company but that he had to wait to save money before starting the company. In her previous testimony Duvestil had confirmed that she and Joinvil had talked about starting a car rental company; that it was hers and Joinvil’s dream; and, that they were waiting to save enough money to start the company. In this regard, she stated that they needed about $5,000 to $10,000. To emphasize her beliefs in Joinvil, she added that she would even be willing to refinance her house to get the money needed to start the company.

She did not, at that time, reveal that she had approximately $16,000 in savings. [ 96 ] In addition to this, when Duvestil was first crossed-examined on whom was paying for the expenses such as groceries and Joinvil’s tickets, her testimony lacked clarity. In fact, at one point, it appeared as though she was ducking the question by explaining that her money was their money. This statement seems to contradict the answer that she gave when she was cross-examined after the evidence was reopened.

Indeed, she explains that she did not use her savings to fund the car rental company because it was “her” money. [ 97 ] In short, Duvestil’s testimony lacked transparency and sincerity. The explanation that she gave when she was questioned about why Joinvil applied for delivery man jobs and when she was questioned about why she gave Joinvil a set of keys for the Audi, are simply not credible.

The same can be said of her answer when she was asked how she felt when she learned about Victoria’s pregnancy and the inconsistencies in her testimony were revealed when the evidence was reopened. [ 98 ] But there is more, the manner in which Duvestil answered questions, by volunteering information favourable to Joinvil yet ducking questions which may bring out unfavourable information (such as the question dealing with the rap video) also supports the Court’s findings regarding the overall transparency and sincerity of Duvestil’s testimony. [ 99 ] Duvestil’s lack of transparency and sincerity has a direct impact on the Court’s assessment of the sincerity of her undertaking to act as a surety.

The Court simply does not believe her when she says that she will report Joinvil if he does not abide by his conditions. [ 100 ] In addition to this, the evidence shows that the relationship between Duvestil and Joinvil is not one that will realistically permit the infusion of the surety’s obligation and their potential enforcement. Indeed, the evidence shows that Duvestil has no effective control over Joinvil.

Duvestil testified that she has tried to change Joinvil’s behaviour over the last two years but, the evidence shows that her attempts failed. [ 101 ] The evidence also shows that she rented the apartment on Gouin where the alleged offences occurred and yet, knew little about what Joinvil was doing in the apartment. The evidence shows the same lack of knowledge with respects to the black Audi she rented. Obviously, it was used by Joinvil, as it was at Victoria’s apartment when Joinvil was arrested.

Either she let Joinvil use it even though he did not have a driver’s licence or she turned a blind eye on the situation. [ 102 ] For all these reasons, the Court finds that Duvestil is not a suitable surety. [ 103 ] As stated before, Joinvil’s testimony on his financial situation was not transparent. It is thus difficult to assess if the amount of $5,000 offered as a deposit is of significance to Joinvil. That being said, in November and in December 2021, Joinvil was using an apartment that was rented at a cost of $1,100 a month.

In December 2021, at the time of the alleged offences, he was also using a car rented at a cost of $400 a week. In the previous months, up to October 2021, he was paying his traffic tickets, at a cost of $550 a month. In short, Joinvil was living above his means, relying on others to cover for his lifestyle. This coupled with the Court’s findings regarding Joinvil’s character and the nature of the relationship between Joinvil and Duvestil (who is depositing $4,000 of the $5,000), cast a doubt on the coercive impact of the offered cash deposit, whether it be $2,500 or $5,000.

[ 104 ] As for Duvestil, it is not clear that the amount she was offering as a deposit is of significance. In that regard, the Court underlines that Duvestil had first offered $2,500 because it was the amount she felt “comfortable” with. After discussions with Joinvil, she raised that amount to $4,000. In this respect, the evidence shows that it took her only 10 days to come up with the additional amount of $1,500 and that she has savings of approximately $16,000.

This, coupled with the Court’s findings regarding Duvestil’s lack of sincerity and the nature of the relationship between Duvestil and Joinvil, cast a serious doubt on the impact of the cash deposit on Duvestil. [ 105 ] In conclusion, the release plan proposed by Joinvil is insufficient to mitigate the risk that his release entails.

Taking into account all of the relevant considerations, including the COVID-19 outbreak and the conditions in which Joinvil is detained, the Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood that Joinvil, if released from custody, could reoffend and thereby endanger the protection or the security of the public. The prosecution has met its burden. Is Joinvil’s detention necessary to ensure his presence in court? [ 106 ] Section 515 (10) (

a) of the Criminal Code states that the pre-trial detention of an accused person is justified where the detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court. Obviously, the criminal system cannot properly function if an accused person abscond. [ 107 ] Many factors can be relevant to assess the risk that an accused person will abscond.

For example, the following factors can be deemed relevant: (1) the nature of the offence and the sentence that the accused person is facing; (2) the likelihood of a conviction; (3) the ties that the accused person maintains with his community; (4) the accused person’s previous convictions and whether he has breached conditions imposed upon him in the past; and, (5) the accused person’s post-offence conduct (whether he turned himself in or whether he absconded). [ 108 ] The first two factors are linked.

The risk that the accused person abscond is higher when the prosecution’s case is strong and the sentence that he faces is, for example, a lengthy jail term. The ties that the accused person has with his community are assessed in order to see if they are strong enough to deter him from absconding. As for the last two factors, they are derived from the general principle that past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour. [ 109 ] Again, no factor is, in itself, determinative.

Rather, the Court must weigh all of these factors, taking into consideration all of the relevant circumstances, to assess the risk that the accused person will abscond. [ 110 ] In the matter at hand, the Court has already explained that the nature of the offences for which Joinvil is charged is serious, with some of these offences being punishable by a maximum sentence of life in prison. The Court has also explained that overall, the likelihood that Joinvil be convicted is high, even though that likelihood varies depending on the offences.

As for the sentence that Joinvil is facing, if found guilty, it will most likely be one of imprisonment. Joinvil’s last sentence, which was also his more serious sentence, was 108 days of detention. It is very difficult, at this early stage, to assess the potential duration of Joinvil’s sentence if found guilty of the various offences for which he is charged in this matter. That being said, it suffices to say that if he is found guilty of all of the offences for which he is charged, the sentence could be well over two years of imprisonment. [ 111 ] The Court has already analyzed Joinvil’s prior convictions.

A closer look at how Joinvil behaved in the years 2016 and 2019, while he had pending cases, shows a pattern of disobeying court orders, including by missing court dates. In addition, when Joinvil missed a court date, in those years, he did not take steps to appear before the court. Rather, bench warrants had to be executed, delaying the proceeding. As stated before, Joinvil testified he has changed and that he now takes court proceeding seriously.

The Court, however, does not believe Joinvil’s assertion in this regard. [ 112 ] As for Joinvil’s post-offence behaviour, the evidence shows a man who, immediately after K.E.D. fled the apartment, began to throw out what is presumed to be K.E.D.’s belongings and left by the garage door, as opposed to the front door of the building. From these facts, one could certainly conclude that he was trying to flee the scene discretely and avoid the police. [ 113 ] This was not the first time that Joinvil adopted a behaviour to avoid the consequences of his actions.

In September 2020, in an event which is unrelated to the charges now pending against him, Joinvil was stopped by the police while he was driving. When the police officer asked him his name, Joinvil gave his brother’s name. The police officer realized this only the next day, when Joinvil and his brother came for the car. [ 114 ] Joinvil has ties to the community. His mother, whom he usually visits during the weekends, lives in Montreal. He has children and will soon be the father of two other children. That being said, he was not an easy man to find when the police were looking for him.

Joinvil’s address at the SAAQ is that of his mother, even though he has not lived there for more than two years. His mother’s address is also the address on the appearance notice he received on October 5, 2021. This means that Joinvil either gave that address or omitted to mention the fact that this was no longer his address. [ 115 ] The evidence shows that Joinvil has nothing in his name. In 2021, he lived with Duvestil, at her house, with an ex-girlfriend, at her apartment, with Victoria, at her apartment and finally, at the apartment on Gouin, that Duvestil had rented for him.

The car that he was using during the period when the offences were allegedly committed was rented by Duvestil. In short, even though Joinvil has ties to the community, he can be a hard man to find. [ 116 ] Finally, the evidence shows that Joinvil is an American citizen and that he had an American passport issued in his name. While this passport was seized by the police, Joinvil could certainly apply for a new one. In addition to this, he has moved around in the last years.

As stated before, in 2018, he was convicted for offences committed in Winnipeg, Manitoba and now has a pending file in Regina, Saskatchewan. [ 117 ] After having weighed all of these factors, and taking into account the fact that the Court does not trust Joinvil’s undertaking to abide by his bail condition and to attend court, the Court finds that there is a substantial risk that if released on bail, Joinvil could

abscond. For the reasons explained above (regarding Duvestil’s lack of suitability to act as a surety and regarding the impact of the offered monetary deposit), the Court finds that Joinvil’s release plan does not sufficiently mitigate the risks that he absconds. [ 118 ] In light of the foregoing, and after having taken into all relevant considerations, including the current COVID-19 outbreak and the conditions in which Joinvil is detained, the Court finds that Joinvil’s detention is necessary to ensure his presence in court. The prosecution has thus met its burden. CONCLUSION Therefore, the Court: ORDERS Jerry Joinvil pre-trial detention pursuant to ss. 515 (10) (

a) and (

b) of the Criminal Code . __________________________________ MÉLANIE HÉBERT, J.C.Q. Mtre Alexandre Gautier Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions For the Prosecutor Mtre Samuel McAuliffe For the Accused Hearing dates: January 7 and 17, 2022