R v Hahn, 2015 SKCA 118

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACR2664 Citation: R v Hahn , 2015 SKCA 118 Date: 2015-11-17 Between: Christopher Richard Hahn Appellant And Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Before: Whitmore J.A. (in Chambers) Disposition: Application denied Written reasons by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Whitmore Application: J 19/12, J.C. of Saskatoon Chambers date: November 12, 2015 Counsel: Christopher Richard Hahn on his own behalf (by telephone) W. Dean Sinclair, Q.C. for the Respondent Whitmore J.A. I. Introduction [ 1 ] Mr.

Hahn was convicted of criminal harassment pursuant to s. 264 of the Criminal Code in relation to the harassment of a justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench who made an order or orders in family law matters involving Mr. Hahn. Mr. Hahn has appealed his conviction and now seeks his release pending the determination of his appeal. II. analysis [ 2 ] In order to secure his release, Mr. Hahn must satisfy the requirements of s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code : 679.

(1) A judge of the court of appeal may, in accordance with this section, release an appellant from custody pending the determination of his appeal if, …

(3) In the case of an appeal referred to in paragraph (1)(

a) or ( c ), the judge of the court of appeal may order that the appellant be released pending the determination of his appeal if the appellant establishes that (

a) the appeal or application for leave to appeal is not frivolous; (

b) he will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of the order; and (

c) his detention is not necessary in the public interest. A. The Appeal is Not Frivolous [ 3 ] Mr. Hahn submits his conviction should be overturned on the basis that the trial judge erred in not admitting certain evidence and in failing to refer to key defence factors in the charge to the jury. Mr. Hahn also complains of false media coverage and contends the trial judge should have been recused due to a conflict of interest and that a judge from another province should have conducted his trial as the complainant was a member of the Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr.

Hahn also submits that he was not given enough credit for time he served on remand. [ 4 ] The Crown takes no position on whether Mr. Hahn’s appeal is frivolous. [ 5 ] According to Smith J.A. in R v Agecoutay , 2008 SKCA 68 at para 9 , 310 Sask R 224, “ the standard to be applied in determining that an appeal is not frivolous is not high, but it is my view that the appellant is obliged at least to provide enough information as to the basis for the ground alleged to satisfy the Court that there is an arguable issue.” [ 6 ] Mr. Hahn has satisfied this requirement. B. Will Surrender Himself into Custody [ 7 ] Mr.

Hahn submits he has no criminal record and there is no evidence he is at risk of flight. He advises the Court that he will

live on an acreage belonging to a friend near Colonsay, Saskatchewan, and will continue his work as a gas well operator in Alberta, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories. [ 8 ] The Crown argues Mr. Hahn is at risk of not surrendering himself into custody.

After being convicted and before sentencing on the matter under appeal, he was arrested for illegally entering Canada. [ 9 ] The Crown submits that although the charge of illegal entry into Canada and the related breach of his release condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour were ultimately withdrawn, the fact remains that he crossed the Canada-U.S. border into the United States and then illegally crossed back into Canada. At the time he was arrested, he had over $1000 USD with him and travel notes indicating that he was on his way to Florida. The Crown also submits that Mr.

Hahn refused to sign his probation order at the time he was convicted. [ 10 ] In reply, Mr. Hahn argues the border incident did not occur in the manner set out by the Crown. [ 11 ] Although the charge relating to the incident at the Canada-U.S. border was ultimately withdrawn, it does give rise to a very real concern that Mr. Hahn will not surrender himself into custody. His failure to sign his probation order adds to the concern that he will not comply with an order requiring him to surrender himself into custody. Mr. Hahn has not satisfied this standard. C.

The Public Interest [ 12 ] The public interest requirement was considered by Richards C.J.S. in R v Mah , 2014 SKCA 26 at para 13 , 433 Sask R 222: [13] The “public interest” referred to in s. 679(3)(

c) comprehends a variety of considerations including the nature of the offence, the situation of the offender, the circumstances surrounding the offence, the strength of the appeal, post-charge conduct, the likelihood the appellant will re-offend if released, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. [ 13 ] Mr. Hahn submits that he wishes to be released to be able to more easily contact his counsel and prepare his defence. He does not have access to a computer in prison. [ 14 ] The Crown submits that Mr. Hahn has a dated criminal record involving convictions for (

i) armed robbery (1993); (ii) attempt to obstruct justice (1993); and (iii) break and enter at the Saskatoon court house (1994). While Mr. Hahn was later pardoned for these offences, the Crown submits that they are relevant in considering the public interest. The Crown also submits that he was warned on some 17 occasions to cease harassing the justice yet continued to do so. [ 15 ] Mr. Hahn views his actions which led to the charge under appeal as a freedom of speech campaign, and believes that he is on a mission for justice.

He feels he has done nothing wrong. [ 16 ] In my view, the nature of this charge, that is the harassment of a judge whose decision he disagrees with, should be of concern to the public. As Vancise J.A. of this Court said in R v Klein , 2003 SKCA 119 , 241 Sask R 104, “failure to take steps to protect the victim would erode confidence in the administration of justice”. [ 17 ] Mr.

Hahn has not discharged the onus of demonstrating that he will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of any court order imposed upon him, nor has he discharged the onus of demonstrating that his detention is not necessary in the public interest. III. conclusion [ 18 ] Accordingly, his application for release pending determination of his appeal is denied. “Whitmore J.A.” Whitmore J.A.