Today's TC article on "catch and release" explains a lot of the process. But something’s missing.
The decision to release is made by the primary police investigator, often in consultation with the sergeant in charge of the jail. Sometimes outside agencies, such as the Ministry of Children and Family Development or other police departments, are consulted. ….
Early this year, Manak said, the Crown updated its policy to say that everybody charged with an offence has a fundamental right to bail on reasonable terms and the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.
“Basically, what they’re saying is: ‘If you’re going to hold somebody, you better damn well have a good reason and be able to justify and explain why you’re not releasing the person at the earliest opportunity.’ ”
The result is that more and more accused property offenders and criminals will be released, he said.
What’s missing is an explanation of the consequences to the police if they don’t automatically release “more and more” criminals. Are they afraid of spending time in court justifying their decisions to keep people in custody?
No doubt, there will be people who commit serious offences and are released, then commit other offences, said Paisana. That becomes very relevant when they come back for bail a second time.
There’s no requirement for police to release someone, only that consideration be given to the least restrictive form of release, said Paisana. “There’s nothing stopping a police officer from saying: ‘This is far too serious. It will require a judge to rule on your release.’”
So why doesn’t Manak do that? It seems that the police board could give VicPD specific instructions: We order you to send every accused offender with a history of violent crime to a bail hearing, instead of simply releasing them. But that’s not happening. Why not?
Edited by Jacques Cadé, 16 September 2021 - 05:44 AM.