R. v. Croscup
Bail pending appeal was denied because the court was not satisfied that detention was not necessary in the public interest, given the appellant’s prior failure to appear, prior breaches of bail (including while babysitting children after conviction), the seriousness of the child sexual‑assault offences, and the low...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C36684, M27884
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Paul Croscup
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for bail pending appeal denied
- Legal Topics
- Bail, Public Interest, Failure to Appear, Breach of Bail, Sexual Assault (children), Appeal Expediting
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Paul Croscup
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether detention pending appeal is necessary in the public interest under s.679(3)(c)
- 2 Whether the appellant’s likelihood of success on appeal is sufficient to justify release
- 3 The impact of past failure to appear and bail breaches on bail pending appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Bail pending appeal was denied because the court was not satisfied that detention was not necessary in the public interest, given the appellant’s prior failure to appear, prior breaches of bail (including while babysitting children after conviction), the seriousness of the child sexual‑assault offences, and the low likelihood of success on appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for bail pending appeal denied
Orders
- Bail pending appeal denied
- Appeal to be expedited for hearing after perfection
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Croscup Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-11-02 Docket numbers C36684, M27884 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20011102 DOCKET: C36684/M27884 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - PAUL CROSCUP (Appellant) BEFORE: FELDMAN J.A. (In Chambers) COUNSEL: Michael Lacy For the appellant Lisa Joyal For the respondent HEARD: October 30, 2001 ENDORSEMENT [1] The Crown opposes bail in this case primarily on the public interest ground (s. 679(3)(c)). The Crown points out that the appellant has one fail to appear on his record. Counsel also argues forcefully that although the appeal cannot be said to be frivolous, the likelihood of success on appeal against conviction is not high, given the trial judge’s consideration of the issues of necessity and reliability in admitting the out-of-court statements of the four-year old complainant, and his reasons for ultimately relying on those statements. [2] Counsel points out further that the appellant has breached previous bail orders including the day after his conviction when he was released prior to sentencing. At that time he was babysitting children. As this matter and the previous convictions involve sexual assault of children, the breach is a particularly serious one. [3] The Crown also points out that the appeal should be able to be heard early in the new year as the transcript will be complete by the end of next week. [4] I agree that I am not satisfied that the appellant’s detention is not necessary in the public interest in all of the circumstances of this case. The application for bail pending appeal is denied. [5] I note that the appellant also has a 60-day consecutive sentence to serve. In the event his appeal is successful, he may be able to have part of the time he is serving be attributable to that sentence. [6] Defence counsel requests an endorsement that the appeal be expedited for hearing after perfection. The Crown agrees. So ordered.