R. v. MacDonald

R. v. MacDonald

The review application is dismissed because the new evidence (revised release plan and surety material) did not demonstrate a material and relevant change in circumstances: applicant failed the due diligence criterion, the new plan was substantially similar to the original plan (a 'reshuffling of the deck'), and it did not remedy the bail judge’s concrete concerns about the proposed surety’s ability to supervise; accordingly detention on secondary and tertiary grounds remained justified.

Citation
2023 NSSC 69
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Applicant/accused: Walter Patrick Owen MacDonald
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Review Under S.520 Criminal Code / Review of S.515 Detention Order Following Judicial Interim Release Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; detention order upheld
Legal Topics
Judicial Interim Release, Section 520 Review, Secondary and Tertiary Grounds S.515(10)(b), (c), Surety Suitability, Fresh Evidence/palmers Criteria, Public Confidence in Administration of Justice
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail and Pre Trial Release Firearms Offences Judicial Interim Release Section 520 Review Secondary and Tertiary Grounds S.515(10)(b),(c) Surety Suitability Fresh Evidence/palmers Criteria +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Walter Patrick Owen MacDonald

Applicant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Bail Review Under S.520 Criminal Code / Review of S.515 Detention Order Following Judicial Interim Release Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence/revised release plan demonstrates a material and relevant change in circumstances under s.520 to vacate the s.515 detention order
  2. 2 Whether the revised suretyship and increased bail address the bail judge’s concerns about supervision and public safety
  3. 3 Whether detention was justified on the secondary and/or tertiary grounds in s.515(10)

Ratio Decidendi

The review application is dismissed because the new evidence (revised release plan and surety material) did not demonstrate a material and relevant change in circumstances: applicant failed the due diligence criterion, the new plan was substantially similar to the original plan (a 'reshuffling of the deck'), and it did not remedy the bail judge’s concrete concerns about the proposed surety’s ability to supervise; accordingly detention on secondary and tertiary grounds remained justified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; detention order upheld

Orders

  • Application for review under s.520 of the Criminal Code dismissed
  • Detention order of Judge Atwood dated March 29, 2022 is maintained