Proposed changes to Canada’s bail laws, which would make it harder for some repeat violent offenders to get bail, may not be constitutional, In light of the recent news by criminal lawyers. The proposed legislation would introduce reverse-onus bail conditions for people charged with serious violent offences involving a weapon, in cases where the person was convicted of a similar violent offence within the last five years. Prosecutors would no longer have to show judges why an accused person should stay behind bars.
Proposed changes to Canada’s bail laws, which would make it harder for some repeat violent offenders to get bail, may not be constitutional, In light of the recent news by criminal lawyers. The proposed legislation would introduce reverse-onus bail conditions for people charged with serious violent offences involving a weapon, in cases where the person was convicted of a similar violent offence within the last five years. Prosecutors would no longer have to show judges why an accused person should stay behind bars. Rather, the accused would have to demonstrate why bail is justified. The lack of a Charter statement for the bail reforms is “probably a sign that they’re struggling a little bit with how to strike the right balance,” said Kyla Lee, a criminal lawyer.
In light of the recent news by a recent article on CTV News, criminal lawyers in Canada are expressing concerns over proposed changes to the country’s bail laws, believing that they may not be constitutional. The lawyers are eagerly awaiting a statement from the federal Liberals, explaining how the reforms comply with the Charter.
Vancouver criminal lawyer Kyla Lee believes that the proposed changes making it harder for some repeat violent offenders to get bail may not be Charter compliant, given that bail is a constitutional right. Lee added that it is challenging to write a Charter statement about something that is very close to crossing constitutional boundaries and is generally unprecedented.