R. v. PENUSI, 2019 SCC 39

Judges have the right to provide bail to persons against whom charges have not yet been framed under the criminal law and while they await the peace bond examination.

Mr. Penusi (Respondent) was behind bars. Meanwhile, a police officer came to the conclusion that Mr. Penusi, when he finishes serving his sentence and will be released, could be in a position to harm someone so he asked the judge for a “peace bond”.

A peace bond it is nothing more than an engagement to the court, by which the person undertakes to respect the due rules and not to break the law. The peace bond must not be confused with the accusation brought by a certain crime or lawlessness, but in the end the failure to comply with this engagement made to the judge entails a crime. An arrest warrant was issued by the judge on the respondent’s name, in order to comply with the demand but he was already behind bars so a deadline has been set for solving the request after Mr. Penusi will be free again.

Furthermore, the Crown claimed that Mr. Penusi could have a choice between two options: either to remain behind bars, or to meet specific terms by then. Meanwhile, the prosecutor invoked the need for a bail examination to which the respondent claimed that there is no connection between bail and peace bond. Because the rules of bail apply only to those on whom serious charges of committing crimes are placed, and in the present case he had no such accusation.

The provincial court when approached agreed with the view of the respondent and refused to hold a bail hearing. The prosecutor went further and challenged this decision at a higher court. The latter judge, from the Supreme Court, argued that the bail regime is compatible with peace bond. Furthermore, the decision of the appellate court was that it’s not compatible and this is due to the fact that a person biding for a peace bond, does not yet have plan over himself an accusation of having committed a crime.

Before the intervention of the superior court, the case was moot. The word “moot” means that given that the issue has already been settled, the judge’s decision was no longer relevant.

Respondent he had nothing against following certain specifications after he got out of jail. In this case, there have been countless misunderstandings between Canadian jurisdictions, concluding that they are due to the fact that the law maker was not been clear enough and the law leaves room for many interpretations.

The Supreme Court ruled that the bail, along with the arrest, are compatible with the peace bond, in a change manner. Furthermore, admitted that judges have the power to summon the people in question to fulfill their peace bond, by a subpoena, or an arrest warrant. In the case of the respondent, the arrest was not made by law, because he was not allowed to exercise his right to a lawyer and he was not informed of the cause of his arrest, so the bail order was found to be not compatible. The Court also reiterated that judges’ are not to impose on the convicts improper conditions for bail.