R. v. Romano

R. v. Romano Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-09-17 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 754 Docket numbers C65842, M49590 Judges Paciocco, David M. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Romano, 2018 ONCA 754 DATE: 20180914 DOCKET: M49590 (C65842) Paciocco J.A. (Motion Judge) BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Responding Party and Remo Romano Applicant Frank Addario and James Foy, for the applicant Holly Loubert, for the responding party Heard and released orally: September 13, 2018 ENDORSEMENT [1] Mr. Romano seeks bail pending appeal pursuant to Criminal Code, s. 679(3). A police officer, he was convicted by a jury of dangerous driving causing death while on duty, and sentenced to eight months in prison. [2] The Crown opposes Mr. Romano’s release. It agrees that there is absolutely no basis for fearing that Mr. Romano will fail to attend court as required, or will commit further offences. It argues, however, that his grounds of appeal are without merit and that the public confidence in the administration of justice is best served if he is not released. I do not agree. [3] Although the Crown has made artful submissions in favour of denying Mr. Romano’s grounds of appeal, his grounds of appeal do not warrant a prejudgment of no merit. The grounds of appeal in this case relate to sufficiency – the sufficiency of the focus on the dangerous driving as opposed to the consequences of the driving, and the sufficiency of the guidance provided on the meaning of marked departure. These grounds of appeal cannot be summarily dismissed as pointless and unarguable. They warrant close examination on the entire record. In my view, they pass the not frivolous standard. [4] Nor do I believe that the public interest is best met by requiring Mr. Romano to begin if not complete serving his sentence of incarceration before he has had an opportunity to have his conviction reviewed. [5] I am mindful that this case involves the death of an innocent member of our society. In that important sense, the crime Mr. Romano has been convicted of is obviously serious. As the Crown conceded, however, Mr. Romano’s crime does not warrant a lengthy punitive sentence. The Crown asked for a sentence of one year in jail. And, as I have said. Mr. Romano has demonstrated that his grounds of appeal are worth listening to. [6] In my view, Mr. Romano has established that a reasonable member of the public would understand that, in this case, the interests of justice are best served by giving Mr. Romano an opportunity to challenge this life-altering conviction before the sentence imposed is enforced. [7] He will be released on the terms of a bail release order that has been agreed to. “David M. Paciocco J.A.”