R. v. Townsend Date:, 2013 BCPC 355

Citation: R. v. Townsend Date: 20131224 2013 BCPC 0355 File No: 39500-2-C Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JASON DENNIS TOWNSEND REASONS AT JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE HEARING OF THE THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M. J. BRECKNELL Counsel for the Crown: T. Gamble Counsel for the Defendant: J. LeBlond Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Judgment: December 24, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT: This is my decision on File Number 39500, the matter of Regina versus Townsend, as it applies to the Crown's application to show cause why Mr. Townsend should be detained. Introduction [ 2 ] In the early morning hours of December 6, 2013, outside a local nightclub, three people, S. R., J. L.-P, and J. R.(2), were injured in an altercation with a fourth person. [ 3 ] The Crown alleges that person was the accused, Jason Dennis Townsend, and that Mr. Townsend committed an unprovoked and vicious assault, causing bodily harm or worse to all three complainants. [ 4 ] Mr.

Townsend was arrested in the Iskut/Dease Lake area, approximately 800 kilometres from Prince George, on December 11, 2013. [ 5 ] The Crown seeks to show cause why Mr. Townsend should be detained, relying on all three grounds set out in s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code . Mr. Townsend's personal background and history [ 6 ] Mr. Townsend was born on April 5, 1977, making him 36 years of age. He was born and raised in Prince George. His father works in sales for a local heavy truck dealership. [ 7 ] Dennis Townsend has assets, including cash, sufficient to have been named as a surety for Mr.

Townsend on a previous occasion when he was facing charges and placed on bail. [ 8 ] Mr. Townsend's mother passed away 20 years ago. His stepmother passed away several years ago, close to the Christmas season. Mr. Townsend has three siblings, one of whom passed away in August of 2013. [ 9 ] He has a Grade 12 education and some college training in carpentry. He owns his own home in Prince George. He has been regularly employed throughout his adult life when he has not been incarcerated.

In recent years, he has been employed at a heavy duty construction company, operating heavy equipment for road construction and most recently on a mine construction project. He has been earning a substantial income for some time. [ 10 ] His past and present employers describe him in their letters of reference in glowing terms, both for his demonstrated work ethic and his high regard for both management and work colleagues. He has steady employment available to him if he obtains his release from custody. [ 11 ] The Crown alleges that Mr. Townsend is proficient in martial arts.

The Crown provided Internet information of Mr. Townsend participating in a mixed martial arts, MMA, event in late 2011. The Crown described Mr. Townsend as having knowledge of MMA tactics and that his body was analogous to a weapon. [ 12 ] The Crown also referred the court to photographs of Mr. Townsend taken from his own Facebook page, showing Mr. Townsend demonstrating a fighting or body building pose to show off his physique. Those pictures were undated, but they also show Mr. Townsend to have a distinct short Mohawk-style haircut. [ 13 ] Defence counsel submitted that Mr.

Townsend had no training in MMA and only participated in one sanctioned event, which he lost in the first round by a technical knockout. Defence counsel did acknowledge that Mr. Townsend had previous boxing training and experience. [ 14 ] Mr. Townsend has a criminal record dating back 16 years. It includes 16 convictions, including one aggravated assault, one assault causing bodily harm, one assault, two firearms offences, three property offences, one break and enter, four drug-related offences, and one obstruction of a peace officer. His last conviction was in 2010 for drugs and firearms-related matters.

His last conviction for violence was an assault in 2005, for which he was jailed for two months. [ 15 ] The aggravated assault conviction was in 1999, and the assault causing bodily harm conviction was in 2001. [ 16 ] Mr. Townsend was facing other charges, the details of which were not provided to the court. He was, his counsel advises, on bail for those charges with his father as a surety. That bail period was without incident. Those charges were eventually stayed. [ 17 ] Mr.

Townsend is also under investigation for assault-related matters in Kelowna, but no charges have been laid in that matter. [ 18 ] The Crown alleges that Mr. Townsend was a member of a now dormant criminal gang called the Renegades. That membership was denied by Mr. Townsend's counsel. Mr. Townsend's location on December 6, 2013 [ 19 ] The nightclub where the altercation occurred utilizes a biometric-based photographic process to monitor patrons. Patrons must produce photographic identification and have their pictures taken in real time upon entering the club.

The club's system recorded a driver's licence photograph and a real-time photograph of a person identified in the club's documents as Mr. Townsend and that he

entered the club at 11:11 p.m. on December 5, 2013. Both of the photographs depict a person with the same short Mohawk hairstyle as the person on Mr. Townsend's Facebook page. Complainants' recollection of the altercation [ 20 ] The complainants gave statements to the RCMP after the altercation. [ 21 ] Ms. L.P. stated that she had consumed considerable alcohol that night and did not recall clearly what occurred, but she knew she was injured because her face was sore and she was bleeding.

She stated that she thought the assailant might have been a man she had known for years, who she described as an African American with dark hair and a moustache. She thought the same man had also attacked Mr. R. [ 22 ] Mr. R. was described as a designated driver that evening and did not state to the RCMP that he was intoxicated. He described the assailant making obscene comments to Ms. L.P., who then slapped the assailant's cigarette to the ground. Mr. R. did not recall the altercation and could not describe the assailant, but said he may be able to from a photograph.

The Crown did not advise the court if a photo lineup had been provided to Mr. R. [ 23 ] Mr. R.(2) had been drinking that evening and could not recall the entire incident, except that he had been talking to a girl he did not know and he could not identify the assailant. The Video [ 24 ] The nightclub utilizes a series of video cameras for security purposes. Two of those cameras provided two different perspectives of the altercation. Although not in high definition, the images are relatively clear and easy to distinguish. [ 25 ] In the video, Mr. R., Ms. L.P., and Mr. R.(2) were identified to the court.

Several other people captured in the video were not identified by the Crown. The videos were played three times during submissions and once prior to this decision. [ 26 ] Jointly the two videos captured the following events as they unfolded. There is no audio to the video. [ 27 ] At about 1:20 a.m. on December 6, Mr. R., Ms. L.P., and two other people were gathered outside the nightclub entrance. Several people, including Ms. L.P., were smoking. Other people can be seen coming and going from the club's entrance door. [ 28 ] A few minutes later, two men exited the club and approached the group by the door.

One man was wearing a black hoodie with a silver design on the back. The hoodie was pulled up over his head. The other was wearing a toque with a yellow or light-coloured band with lettering, offset by darker colours on the toque. The man in the hoodie stepped right in front of Ms. L.P. and they exchanged words and she pushed him back. Further words were exchanged, and Ms. L.P. stepped forward towards the man on two occasions and attempted to strike him in the head. The man adopted a one-leg-up defensive position often seen in some forms of martial arts, including MMA. The blows thrown by Ms.

L.P. were either avoided by the man completely by moving his head, or only lightly made contact. [ 29 ] After that, the group milled about again briefly, during which time defence counsel suggested that Mr. R. had said words like, "We have to go", to which defence counsel said it could mean (

a) we have to leave this place, or (

b) a request to engage in a fight. [ 30 ] Suddenly, and without any aggressive motions by Mr. R., the assailant struck Mr. R. in the face with a strong punch-like blow, causing Mr. R.'s head to snap back and strike a brick wall he was standing near. Mr. R. immediately fell to the ground and the assailant kicked him once in the head and subsequently once in the body. [ 31 ] The attack on Mr. R. appeared to have caused Ms. L.P. and others to engage the assailant, who then took a couple of steps back, pulled his hoodie off his head, and then landed what appeared to be a full-force roundhouse-style punch to Ms.

L.P.'s face, causing her to fall down, bleeding profusely from her mouth. [ 32 ] Once the assailant's head and face was revealed, it was clear that he is a Caucasian male in the age range of about early thirties, with a short Mohawk hairstyle. The Crown says that several RCMP members are able to, from past dealings with Mr. Townsend, confirm that the assailant is Mr. Townsend. [ 33 ] After Ms. L.P. fell to the ground, both she and Mr. R. can be seen trying to get up, with considerable difficulty, and get out of the continuing events.

Several people can be seen coming and going from the club's door, but only one offers any assistance to either Mr. R. or Ms. L.P. While Mr. R. and Ms. L.P. are incapacitated, the altercation continues when Mr. R.(2) grabs the assailant from behind to try to restrain him. [ 34 ] Others, including the man with the yellow banded toque, become involved, appearing to assist the assailant. The assailant breaks free of Mr. R.(2), strikes him and knocks him to the ground, and then appears to kick Mr. R.(2) in the head and then stomp on his head as he lies motionless in the gutter. Mr.

R.(2) lay in the street unmoving for the better part of half a minute while people milled about. [ 35 ] A woman approached Mr. R.(2), observed him, and then turned and called out to others. It appears she may be saying, "Call 9-1-1". The assailant can be seen sauntering away from the scene. [ 36 ] There is no suggestion by either the Crown or defence counsel that the assailant knew any of the complainants. Events after the altercation

[37] All three complainants received medical attention, both at the scene and subsequently in hospital. They all suffered a variety ofinjuries to their mouth, face, teeth, and head. All of the injuries were more than transient and trifling. [38] The Crown was unable to provide detailed medical evidence concerning the treatment or prognosis for any of the complainants,but was able to relate that some of the complainants have required dental and medical treatments. [39] The Crown alleges that in the days after the altercation, two men attended at Mr. R.'s workplace.

He was not there, but the menallegedly left a message for him with his coworkers, telling that he should "drop the charges". That interaction, says the Crown, has leftMr. R. and his family fearful of reprisals and amounts to an obstruction of justice. Defence counsel pointed out that at this point thoseallegations amounted to quadruple hearsay and cannot be relied upon at all. [40] The local media has taken a great interest in the story, with the local daily paper featuring an

article soon after the altercation,reporting the allegations, the fact that there was a warrant out for Mr. Townsend, and featuring a prominent photograph described as Mr.Townsend with the same short Mohawk depicted in the other photographs of him. [41] Mr. Townsend was arrested several days later at his jobsite in the Iskut/Dease Lake area. The Crown submits that the courtshould be concerned, because after the altercation he did not engage with the RCMP. The Law [42] Section 515(10) of the Criminal Code of Canada says:

(10) For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds: (

a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law; (

b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or anyperson under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, ifreleased from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and (

c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including (

i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence . . . and (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment [and so on] . . . Case Law [43] The Crown provided the case of R. v. Bird, 2011 MBQB 11. I found that case to be of little assistance in this matter, becausethe facts alleged in that case are very different than those alleged in this circumstance, both with regard to Mr. Bird's assault on the otherinmate, and with regard to Mr.

Bird's personal background. [44] The defence provided four cases: R. v. Adiwal, 2003 BCSC 740; R. v. Budge, [2012] O.J. No. 2538; R. v. Brotherston, 2009BCCA 431; and R. v. Abdel-Rahman, 2010 BCSC 189. [45] Most of those cases dealt at length with the tertiary grounds, as set out in s. 515(10)(c), referring back to the seminal SupremeCourt of Canada decision of R. v.

Hall, 2002 SCC 64 , [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309, and the cases that have relied upon that casesubsequently. [46] Abdel-Rahman also sets out a four factor analysis of what the court is to consider on bail applications involving the secondarygrounds under s. 515(10)(b). Submissions [47] The Crown's submissions are set out in the bail brief, which can be summarized as follows. [48] On the primary ground, the incident and Mr. Townsend's arrest warrant were highly publicized. Mr. Townsend walked away

from the incident, but could have but did not turn himself in. Instead, he left town where he was found, arrested in a remote area of Dease Lake, more than 800 kilometres away. He also has criminal convictions for breach of probation and breach of bail, but they are over 15 years old. [ 49 ] On the secondary ground, the Crown relied on the intimidation of witnesses and victims by others associated with Mr. Townsend in the days that followed; Mr. Townsend's criminal record; the Kelowna incident that is awaiting charge approval but in which Mr. Townsend is the prime suspect; and that Mr.

Townsend is like a ticking time bomb or a Roman candle, and we do not know what will set him off, so controlling him by bail is not possible. [ 50 ] With regard to the tertiary grounds, the Crown relied on the following: a. That the Crown's case is strong: This includes the video surveillance, and that Mr. Townsend is identified by the biometric system in place at the nightclub; b.

The gravity of the offence: The video depicts an attack that was unprovoked and violent on three different individuals, including a young woman, the injuries were significant to all three, including a loss of consciousness and memory loss, as well as physical trauma to their face and head. Multiple kicks to the head were levied on one individual while he laid on the ground, and another individual was also kicked in the head and had his head stomped on while he laid unconscious. c. The circumstances of the offence: The Crown relied on the fact that they allege that Mr.

Townsend attacked three people and left them all bleeding and walked away; that his criminal record demonstrates a history of violence; that he did not turn himself in but chose to leave the area and had to be arrested after a search; that he is an MMA fighter; and that at least one of the victims has been intimidated by others with the message being "don't testify against Mr. Townsend"; and further, that there exists a strong community interest in this crime which has made front page news. Defence [ 51 ] Defence counsel did not acknowledge or admit, as he is not required to do so, that the assailant was Mr.

Townsend. [ 52 ] His submissions, in

summary, included: a. the video shows only a small period of time of what occurred; b. there is no audio, so we do not know if the complainants uttered provocative words; c. Ms.

L.P. struck or tried to strike the assailant two times before he retaliated at all; d. everyone was intoxicated; e. the altercation was serious and people did get injured, although the extent of the injuries is not yet defined; f. there is no indication of any premeditation, the assailant's actions were reactionary only; g. the issues at trial will include identification, nature of the injuries, intoxication, and provocation; h. the Crown's case has some strengths, but also weaknesses, and the proceeding presently engaged in is a bail hearing and not a trial.

Bail Plan [ 53 ] Defence counsel presented a bail plan that includes the following terms of recognizance: a. that Mr. Townsend would keep the peace and be of good behaviour, he would report as directed, and he would reside with his father, Dennis Townsend; b. that Dennis Townsend would be a substantial surety and could post a cash deposit bail of up to $20,000; c. that Mr. Townsend would be under house arrest or strict curfew when not working away from Prince George; d. that there would be an order for no contact with the complainants or any witnesses; e. that there would be further orders that Mr.

Townsend not possess weapons and not consume or possess drugs or alcohol, and not be found in any liquor establishments. [ 54 ] The Crown criticized the bail plan, noting that Dennis Townsend has to work, even on days when Mr. Townsend is in Prince George, and is not capable of maintaining surveillance over Mr. Townsend on a continuous basis, and that when Mr. Townsend was working in camp, there would be very few controls available to monitor his behaviour. Discussion [ 55 ] For the purposes of this bail hearing, the Crown has established to the court's satisfaction that Mr. Townsend was the assailant

on the video, based on the following: a. Mr. Townsend's distinctive hairstyle which shows up on his Facebook photographs, the nightclub security photographs, his driver's licence photograph, the newspaper photograph, and the video footage from which several RCMP members are said to be able to identify Mr. Townsend based on past dealings with him; b. the security system at the nightclub, which compares a driver's licence photograph to a real-time photograph, and information that the two photographs are of Mr.

Townsend; and c. the court's own observations of the items described above and the person in the prisoner's box being identified to the court as Mr. Townsend. [ 56 ] The altercation appears to have at its catalyst when Mr. Townsend came very close to Ms. L.P. initially upon leaving the nightclub, an "in your face" position, as you will, and words were exchanged before she first pushes him back and then later tries to strike him. [ 57 ] There are no actions by Mr. R. observed in the video to indicate that he was being aggressive towards Mr. Townsend before Mr.

Townsend blindsided him with a punch and then, when he collapsed to the ground, kicked him in the head and the body. Although others interacted with Mr. Townsend immediately after Mr. R. was struck, Mr. Townsend, instead of retreating, lashed out with a full-force punch, striking Ms. L.P. full in the face and causing her to fall down. [ 58 ] When Mr. R.(2) intervened and attempted to restrain Mr. Townsend from further assaults, Mr. Townsend broke free with the assistance of the gentleman in the toque with the yellow stripe, and in addition to assaulting Mr.

R.(2) which might have, in some circumstances, been a reasonable move for self-defence, he went further and kicked and stomped on Mr. R.(2)'s head when he was obviously in no position to defend himself. [ 59 ] Although there may be some contention concerning Mr. Townsend's professional fighting prowess, the photographs of his physique and his actions in the video both indicate that he is someone who is fit, in shape, and able, if necessary, to engage in pugilism. [ 60 ] There are some legitimate issues raised and worthy of investigation by the RCMP as to why, if Mr. Townsend did not know Mr.

R., that people would come to Mr. R.'s place of work shortly after the altercation to tell him to drop the charges against Mr. Townsend. [ 61 ] There is no consideration to be given to some possible other charges from Kelowna at this time. Likewise, there is little to be made of the fact that after the altercation Mr. Townsend left the scene, or that he returned to his regular employment in short order. [ 62 ] Furthermore, I take no note of any allegations that Mr. Townsend may have been at one time a member of a gang that may have been at one time operating in the City of Prince George.

Section 515(10) [ 63 ] There is very little strength to the Crown's submissions on the primary ground. Defence counsel was not asked by the court to even address the topic. A series of breaches over 14 years old, with successful bail by Mr. Townsend since, does not meet the necessary standard of balance of probabilities for detention on the primary ground. [ 64 ] Dealing with the secondary ground requires a review of the four factors set out in Abdel-Rahman :

a) First, that there is a risk that the accused will either commit an offence, or will interfere with the administration of justice, if he is released; [ 65 ] Given Mr. Townsend's criminal history and the seemingly unprovoked nature of the December 6th altercation, there is a risk he will reoffend. There is also a risk, albeit not fully investigated yet by the RCMP, that he might interfere with the administration of justice.

b) Second, that this risk is of such magnitude that it amounts to a "substantial likelihood"; [ 66 ] The seeming randomness of Mr. Townsend's actions and the altercation make it difficult to assess the likelihood in many respects. However, given his past history of substantial violence and his regular criminal activity, the likelihood in this set of circumstances is, in the court's view, substantial.

c) Third, that the said risk would constitute a danger to public safety (in general, or to a specific victim or witness) if the accused is released; [ 67 ] Given the nature of the ferociousness of the assailant against the complainants during the altercation, all of whom were unknown to the assailant, it would appear that the safety of the general public would be at risk if Mr. Townsend was released.

[68] Furthermore, given that somebody who was previously unknown to him, namely Mr. R., was approached at his place of work,although he was not at work on that day, by people who seemed to know he was involved in the altercation, causes some concern.

d) Fourth, that the detention . . . is "necessary,” because the identified danger to public safety cannot be prevented or reduced to anacceptable level by bail conditions (such as reporting to authorities, curfew, no-contact, mobility restrictions, sureties or cash bail). [69] Defence counsel has proposed very strict bail terms with a surety in substantial cash to ensure Mr. Townsend's compliance withthe bail order. [70] However, as the Crown points out, what restrictions on Mr.

Townsend would be effective when he was working in a remotelocation where his behaviour and access to intoxicants could not be monitored or curtailed. Further, the Crown notes that Mr.Townsend's father cannot monitor him 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even when he may be in Prince George, due to his father'sown work commitments. [71] In considering the tertiary ground, the court is guided by the cases presented, as well as the cases referred to within those cases. In considering s. 515(10)(c), and addressing the public confidence factor, the court must consider all of the circumstances of the eventsand Mr.

Townsend, and in particular the four enumerated factors, all of which are set out in s. 515(10)(c), and all of which are to beapplied only in the rarest of circumstances. [72] In paragraph 30 of Brotherston, the Court of Appeal refers to the decision of R. v. Bhullar, 2005 BCCA 409, where the Court ofAppeal in that case said at paragraphs 60 and 61 the following: [60] In my respectful view, the hearing judge's brief analysis of the tertiary ground does not accord with the constitutional constraintsdiscussed by the Chief Justice in Hall. In relation to the tertiary ground, McLachlin C.J. made clear that s. 11(

e) of the Charter does notpermit Parliament to confer a broad discretion on judges to deny bail; rather, s. 515(10)(

c) must be considered having regard in particularto the four enumerated factors set out in that subparagraph. Moreover, the court must be satisfied that detention is not only advisable butnecessary and necessary not just to any goal, but to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. [61] Further, the analysis must be made from the perspective of a reasonable and informed member of the public. As noted byMcEachern C.J.B.C. in R. v. Nguyen, (BC CA), [1997] B.C.J.

No. 2121, at para. 18, and referred to with approval inHall, the reasonable person making this assessment must be one properly informed about "the philosophy of the legislative provisions,Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case." The Charter values include the presumption of innocence and the recognitionof the importance of bail to the proper administration of justice. [73] It is also a topic discussed by Mr. Justice Romilly in Adiwal, where he says in paragraphs 36 and 37: [36] Section 515(10)(

c) sets out specific factors which delineate a narrow set of circumstances under which bail can be denied on thebasis of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice. As discussed earlier, situations may arise where, despite the fact that theaccused is not likely to abscond or commit further crimes while awaiting trial, his presence in the community will call into question thepublic's confidence in the administration of justice.

Whether such a situation has arisen is judged by all the circumstances, but inparticular the four factors that Parliament has set out in s. 515(10)(c) – the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, the gravity of thenature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the potential for lengthy imprisonment.

Where, as here, thecrime is horrific, inexplicable, and strongly linked to the accused, a justice system that cannot detain the accused risks losing the publicconfidence upon which the bail system and the justice system as a whole repose. [37] Accordingly, the tertiary ground may be appropriate in the comparatively rare cases where a horrific offence carrying a lengthyterm of imprisonment may be strongly linked to the accused. [74] The facts of the case must also be as described by Chief Justice McLachlin in Hall as follows, where she says at paragraph 40: Where, as here, the crime is horrific, inexplicable, and strongly linked to the accused, a justice system that cannot detain the accusedrisks losing the public confidence upon which the bail system and the justice system as a whole repose. [75] The four delineated factors and their applicability to the facts in this case include: (

a) The apparent strength of the prosecution's case [76] Here there is strong evidence of Mr. Townsend being at the nightclub, and that he was the assailant to attack Mr. R. withoutprovocation and, by using his pugilistic skills and experience, visited violence and somewhat uncontrolled and gratuitous additionalassaultive behaviour upon Mr. R. and Mr. R.(2) [77] Although the complainants have little recollection of the events, not unexpected since they all experienced head trauma, thevideo recording is clear enough to draw a strong conclusion that the assailant is Mr. Townsend, particularly given the other evidence of

his distinctive short Mohawk haircut. (

b) The gravity of the offence [ 78 ] The unprovoked, extremely violent nature of the altercation have left three people with serious, but not yet fully diagnosed and treated injuries. They are horrendous crimes committed on citizens generally acting peacefully in a public place, and in the case of Mr. R.(2), a good Samaritan attempting to cease the altercation for which he was not only repelled, but gratuitously attacked once he is knocked to the ground and unable to defend himself. (

c) The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence [ 79 ] There is a strong indication that Mr. Townsend is a violent, fit individual with an undetermined amount of martial arts training and skill, who began the chain of events by verbally confronting Ms. L.P. and getting in her face, and using what Mr. R. described as extremely derogatory language. (

d) If convicted, a potentially lengthy period of imprisonment [ 80 ] Aggravated assault has a maximum sentence of 14 years. Assault causing bodily harm has a maximum sentence of 10 years. Neither the Criminal Code or the case law defined what "a lengthy period" is, but given the nature of the offences and Mr.

Townsend's criminal record, if convicted he could be facing a sentence of at least four to six years' imprisonment, which objectively could be described as a lengthy period of time to deprive any citizen of his or her liberty. [ 81 ] In examining all of the factors in Abdel-Rahman concerning the secondary grounds, the court must give credit to defence counsel for formulating the best possible bail plan for Mr. Townsend in the circumstances. However, the issues raised by the Crown concerning the inability to carefully monitor Mr.

Townsend in many circumstances and the inexplicable and random and extremely violent nature of the altercation, lead to the conclusion that no form of bail could be crafted to ensure Mr. Townsend's compliance and properly protect the community in general and the complainants in particular. [ 82 ] As such, the Crown has satisfied me on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Townsend must be detained on the secondary grounds. [ 83 ] In considering all of the circumstances surrounding the tertiary ground, including the four enumerated factors, Mr.

Townsend's criminal history, his family support, and his employment opportunities, it is still, in my view, necessary to conclude that an objective member of the community, fully informed of the purpose of s. 515(10)(

c) and the Charter values to be considered, would come to the conclusion that Mr. Townsend's detention is necessary and advisable to maintain the public's confidence in the administration of justice. [ 84 ] The Crown has also satisfied me that Mr. Townsend must also be detained on the tertiary ground. (REASONS CONCLUDED)