Docket: CACR2451 Chancey Heiser Applicant/Appellant - v. -, 2014 SKCA 71

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2014 SKCA 71 Date: 2014-06-25 Between: Docket: CACR2451 Chancey Heiser Applicant/Appellant - and - Her Majesty the Queen Respondent/Respondent Before: Jackson J.A. (in Chambers) Counsel: Mr. Chancey Heiser for himself Mr. Andrew Davis for the Crown Application: From: CR 10/12, J.C. of Prince Albert Heard: June 25, 2014 Disposition: Dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: June 25, 2014

By: The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson Jackson J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial interim release pursuant to s. 679(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 pending thehearing of Mr. Heiser’s appeal from conviction. Mr. Heiser pled guilty to one count of sexual assault against two women and one countof impersonating a police officer. The Crown stayed four other charges. Mr. Heiser was sentenced to four years and six monthsimprisonment. [2] Sub-section 679.(3) of the Criminal Code requires that Mr. Heiser demonstrate that (

i) his appeal is not frivolous; (ii) he willsurrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of the order for release; and (iii) his detention is not necessary in the publicinterest. Crown counsel concedes the second point, but submits that Mr. Heiser’s appeal is frivolous and that his detention is necessaryin the public interest. [3] On the basis of the limited record before me, I have concluded that Mr. Heiser’s detention is necessary in the public interest.

Notonly has he been convicted of having sexually assaulted two women, he pled guilty to having done so after a preliminary inquiry whereboth complainants testified. It appears from the file material that Mr. Heiser was represented by counsel when the Court took his guiltyplea. When he tried to withdraw his plea, three weeks later, his counsel withdrew, and the Court conducted an expungement hearingbefore refusing to allow Mr. Heiser to withdraw his plea. Thus, the grounds on this preliminary review of the matter do not appear to bestrong, particularly having regard for s. 606(1.2) of the Criminal Code; R. v.

Adgey, (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 426; R. v.Arcand, 2000 SKCA 60, 199 Sask. R. 4 at para. 3; and R. v. Leonard, 2007 SKCA 128 at paras 17–19, 307 Sask. R. 140. To releaseMr. Heiser in these circumstances would detrimentally affect the public confidence in the administration of justice and would thereforebe contrary to the public interest: R. v. Demyen (1975), (SK CA), 26 C.C.C. (2d) 324 (Sask. C.A.) at p. 326. [4] The application is dismissed.