r v. Natna, 2012 QCCQ 7820

R. c. Nega 2012 QCCQ 7820 COURT OF QUEBEC Criminal and Penal Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL CITY OF MONTRÉAL N o : 500-01-073182-120; 500-01-073398-122; 500-01-071470-121 DATE: 4 June 2012 _____________________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J. C.Q. _____________________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Prosecutor v.

Natna NEGA Accused _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Judicial Interim Release) _____________________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A hearing on judicial interim release is not a preliminary inquiry and certainly not a trial. Its purpose is to determine whether a detained person may be released pending the continuation of proceedings in accordance with the principles provided in

section 515 of the Criminal Code [1] as interpreted in the jurisprudence of our courts. [ 2 ] Mr. Nega is not yet nineteen years old. He faces serious charges, including attempted murder, arising from an alleged stabbing on 8 May 2012. In another file he is charged with possession of three (3) rocks of crack cocaine, allegedly found on his person at the time of his arrest relating to the first file. He also faces five counts of breach for failing to report to his probation officer. In 2008 he was found guilty in Youth Court of mischief.

In 2011, again in Youth Court, he was found guilty of assault and breach of probation. He admits that he began to consume marijuana and cocaine while under conditions. It is thus self-evident that this court cannot have unqualified confidence in Mr. Nega. That, of course, is not the standard for interim release. [ 3 ] The Criminal Code privileges liberty rather than detention. The Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail. The prosecution in this case must show cause why interim release should be denied. There is a risk in this case that Mr.

Nega will not appear at court as required. There is a risk of reoffending and there is a perceptible concern about the element of dangerousness. [2] Previous conduct shows a risk that he will disregard conditions imposed by a court order. But are these risks too great to bear? [ 4 ] The positions taken by each of the parties are not unreasonable. Strict adherence to the principles set out in Rondeau and other cases would not lead ineluctably to one result or the other. [3] The charges against Mr. Nega are more serious than charges he has previously faced.

It will suffice at this stage to say that the prosecution evidence is cogent with regard to evidence of identification and other issues. I will not weigh the strength of that evidence or make findings of credibility. [ 5 ] Mr. Nega has the support of his parents, although it is not clear how much authority they exercise over him. They are separated but live close to each other. Mr. Nega continues to live with his mother and provides domestic assistance on a daily basis to his disabled father. His parents have little money. Mr.

Nega does not have paid employment other than some payment for services to his father and at this time he is not registered as a student. [ 6 ] Neither the number nor the nature of the offences charged against Mr. Nega makes him ineligible for judicial interim release. The risk that he will fail to attend court and the risk posed under the second criterion (protection of the public) also do not disqualify him for interim release unless these risks are too great to be reasonably assumed.

The Supreme Court has emphasised in Pearson and Morales that these are the only reasons for which release can be properly denied. [4] I note that in Pearson the Court was concerned with the exceptional rules in section 515(6)(

d) and even there said the denial of bail should be narrowly construed. Mr. Nega’s case is subject to the same general principles stated by the Supreme Court. [ 7 ] Mr. Nega has now had several encounters with the courts and several of these in the past year alone. The evidence is hardly encouraging with respect to any of the three files before the court, and especially the circumstances concerning the charge of attempted murder and Mr. Nega’s subsequent arrest. Thus I fully accept that the evidence discloses identifiable risks, but it does not show cause that detention must be ordered in this case. As the Supreme Court has said, the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail

must prevail unless just cause is shown otherwise. These constitutional principles are not in issue in this case but they reinforce the statutory scheme set out in

Part XVI of the Code. The evidence in Mr. Nega’s case does persuade me that strict conditions should be imposed to ensure compliance with the first and second grounds in section 515(10): attendance at court and, in the broadest sense, protection of the public. Accordingly, judicial interim release is granted on the following conditions but I preface them with a caution. It should be obvious that non-compliance with these conditions is unlikely to be met with leniency. You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must attend court when and as required.

You must reside at [...] and you may not change your address without prior permission in writing from the Cour du Québec. You must observe a curfew in your place of residence between 19h00 and 7h00 and the only exception will be for a proven medical emergency concerning you, your parents or your siblings or their children. You may not communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, with the complainant Lusson PIERRE, and you must not be within a radius of one hundred (100) metres of his person. You may not possess weapons of any kind.

You may not possess or consume drugs of any kind except in accordance with a valid medical prescription. You must attend at the Centre opérationnel sud at 980 Guy Street every Tuesday and Friday between 10h00 and 14h00, beginning Tuesday, 5 June 2012. You must have a copy of these conditions in your possession at all times when you are not within your place of residence. ____________________________________ PATRICK HEALY, J.C.Q. M e Katherine Brabant For the prosecutor M e Elfride Duclervil For Mr. Nega Date of hearing : 25 & 28 May 2012