Blog

R. v. G.S. (bail hearing) | Examples Of Favourable Verdicts

Posted by:

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

V.

GEORGE SHEPPARD

**********

SHOW CAUSE HEARING

EVIDENCE OF MOIRA GREY

**********

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE XXXXX

ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003, AT TORONTO.

**********

APPEARANCES:

COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN S. KEE, MS.

COUNSEL FOR MR. SHEPPARD T. PAIN, ESQ.

**********

OCTOBER 29, 2003

* * * *
THE COURT: What are the names of the two accused that we do have here?
MR. PAIN: I’m sorry, Your Honour. This is Mr. Sheppard, George Sheppard, and I’m counsel for Mr. Sheppard. My name is Pain, P-A-I-N, initial T.
MS. KEE: Mr. Sheppard, Your Honour, is here in a reverse onus situation. The Crown is not consenting to his release. Is my friend content that I read in the facts?
MR. PAIN: That’s fine, Your Honour. I’m content.
MS. KEE: Thank you. I’m going to start, Your Honour — first of all, I should indicate to my friend that there appears to be a $2,000 release date of assault with the offence date of December the 28th, 2002. Are you aware of that?
MR. PAIN: Yes, yes, I am.
MS. KEE: The Crown is seeking to have that release revoked.
COURT OF THE CLERK: That information is not before the court, Your Honour.
MS. KEE: Is it possible, Madam Clerk, to have the information brought in?
CLERK OF THE COURT: Sure. If you give me a few minutes – –
MS. KEE: Do you want to take a moment or two, and we can deal with the other matter?
CLERK OF THE COURT: No, you can deal with it now.
MS. KEE: Okay.
CLERK OF THE COURT: If His Honour will excuse me for a moment – –
MS. KEE: And also, too, Madam Clerk, there is a fail to appear with the offence date of March the – – April the 3rd.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, on the docket, there’s an assault and a fail to comply Undertaking. You’re saying there is a fail to appear, as well?
MS. KEE: I have other matters that relate to this man and I’m seeking to have his bail revoked on.
THE COURT: Well, so let’s just see what you want so that when the clerk goes, we can get everything.
MS. KEE: Yes, I do. Okay. The assault, please, the offence date is December 28th, 2002. The fail to attend court, the offence date is April 3rd, 2003. Got that?
CLERK OF THE COURT: Pardon me? The only thing I have are the two new ones – – two new charges.
MS. KEE: And then I also have a charge of assault and failing to comply with undertaking.
CLERK OF THE COURT: That’s the information I have.
MS. KEE: But I would like to have those other two Informations in the court for the purposes of a 524 application, Your Honour.
CLERK OF THE COURT: That’s no problem with that.
MS. KEE: Thank you.
CLERK OF THE COURT: May I be excused, Your Honour?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. KEE: The other gentleman is – – so we’ll hold Mr. Sheppard while you do that or …
CLERK OF THE COURT: So go ahead.
MS. KEE: Thank you. I’ll start with Mr. Sheppard then if my friend is content that we proceed without the information before the court. I know it’s in the building and it’s going to be brought in momentarily.
MR. PAIN: That’s fine, Your Honour.
MS. KEE: Okay. On the first charge of assault, and that’s on December the 28th, 2002, it happened in front of 49 Lane Street East Toronto. On that date about 10:25, the accused, Mr. Sheppard was out front of 49 Lane Street East in the city of Toronto. He was in the company of the victim, a girlfriend of eight months. They had left a local bar and became involved in a verbal dispute once they reached the car. He started throwing bags from the trunk of the car onto the roadway. And as the accused picked up these bags, he swung one bag which struck the victim on the side of the head. An off duty police officer saw this altercation take place and intervened. The police were contacted and they attended. He was placed under arrest, taken to 52 Division where he was charged with assault and later released on a promise to appear to attend in court. There are also appears to be a recognizance attached to this. So I’ll have to look at the information to see why, Your Honour. The second one is a fail to attend court. On the 28th of December 2002, the accused, as you’ve heard, was arrested for assault. He was released on a promise to appear and a promise to attend court, as required. On the 19th of March 2003, he appeared in courtroom 114 at Old City Hall, and he was required by the court to return to Old City Hall, 60 Queen Street East, on Thursday, April the 3rd of 2003, at about 3:00 p.m. He did not attend court as required. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He was investigated on an unrelated matter and the warrant came to light, and he was arrested and held for a show cause hearing. That’s on the fail to appear. And what I think happened is there was a $2,000 release on both the show – – on the fail to appear and the assault. But we’ll have to double check the Informations. It may be that they were just brought together. The latest charge that is before the court is – –
THE COURT: And, I’m sorry, and who is the victim in the assault of – – the alleged assault of December 28?
MS. KEE: The victim, alleged victim is Katie Watts, the same victim as today. It’s the same victim and it’s the outstanding charge from December of 2002. On Friday, the 3rd of October 2003, Miss Watts and the accused – – in the evening of that day, the victim found the accused in a bar. The victim and the accused left and got into the accused’s motor vehicle. He was driving and she was seated in the front passenger seat. While driving northbound on Lincoln St, north, of Dundas Street East, they go into an argument. At this time, he struck her on the left side of her head with his right fist, at least three times. Eventually, the accused stopped the vehicle at this location. She got out of the passenger – – she opened the door to exit. He pushed her out of the vehicle. She fell out of the vehicle landing on her bottom, on the sidewalk. She left the area and did not report this to the police at the time. The victim reported this incident on October the 8th, telling them that she had a bump on her head from the incident.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear because of the siren. What happened on October the 8th?
MS. KEE: She told the police about what happened and she also said she had a bump on her head from the incident. On October the 29th, the accused surrendered himself to 52 Division. At the time that this happened, it’s my understanding that he was on a release and one of the conditions was to have no contact directly or indirectly with Miss Watts and to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. It is a reverse onus situation. Now, my friend has some issue about whether or not he was on a release. We’ll have to wait until we have the Informations brought in, or whether or not there was a variation. It still is a reverse onus situation by the fact that there is a fail to appear. He is 50 years old. He lives in Jerry Street in Toronto. He has no criminal record. He has the offences before the court which relate to the same victim. It’s the Crown’s position we have concerns on the secondary grounds that he has assaulted her in December, he has failed to attend court and he is still in contact with her in October of this year. We are concerned for her safety
were he to be released. He lives on Jerry Street in Toronto. And that’s the information we have.
THE COURT: Maybe you can complete your submissions with the Informations. Here.
MS. KEE: Thank you very much. May I see the Informations, please? Thank you. It appears, Your Honour, as if the gentleman had entered a recognizance of bail on the 7th of October in the amount of $2,000. And I’m trying to figure out what charge it’s on. And that was on a fail to appear and on the first assault, contrary to the Criminal Code. So he’s here on the new assault which is the 3rd of October, and the failing to comply with the release.
THE COURT: So obviously, on the 7th of October, those other matters were outstanding but they hadn’t yet been reported to the police. Is that what it appears to be?
MS. KEE: It appears to be that, Your Honour. And there was – – if my friend wants to have a look through the bail papers, he’s welcome to.
MR. PAIN: That’s fine, Your Honour. I intend to make submissions on the release papers at the end. So if my friend’s done – –
MS. KEE: I’m fine.
MR. PAIN: Your Honour, if I may call Moira Grey, please, as proposed – –
MS. KEE: I’m sorry?
MR. PAIN: Oh, I’m sorry.
MS. KEE: Who are you calling? I couldn’t hear you.
MR. PAIN: Moira Grey.
MS. KEE: Is this the complainant?
MR. PAIN: No, this is a proposed surety.
MS. KEE: Thank you.
MR. PAIN: And, in fact, a current surety for Mr. Sheppard.
MOIRA GREY: SWORN
MS. KEE: Just on a technical point, Your Honour, I don’t – – can a surety who’s already – – someone who’s already acting as a surety for a person be put forward as a second – – a second time to act as a surety in another set of charges?
THE COURT: I don’t think there’s anything preventing that.
MS. KEE: Okay. I just wanted to double-check, Your Honour.

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. PAIN:
Q. Miss Grey, you’re married to Mr. Sheppard? Is that correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Okay. And where do you live?
A. We live on 19 Jerry Street, in Toronto.
Q. Okay. And how long have you been living there?
A. Three years.
Q: Okay. And how long have you been married to Mr. Sheppard for?
A: Since October 9th, 1979.
Q: Okay. And what is your occupation?
A: I’m a post-production supervisor in the radio broadcasting business.
Q: Okay. And you’ve been doing that since when?
A: Since 1985.
Q: Okay. And you’re aware of the details of the present charges?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Okay. And can you explain to His Honour what your feelings are on those charges?
A: Well, my feelings are that the charges are very serious, but I also want to emphasize that I’ve known George since 1975 and he’s never once been physically abusive to me and I have never witnessed anything like that. So that’s all I can say.
Q: Now, I understand you are currently a surety for Mr. Sheppard? Is that correct?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Now, I’m going to walk you through a bit of it because there’s some confusion. I understand Mr. Sheppard was arrested October 3rd? Is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Okay. And do you remember what day of the week that was?
A: That was on Saturday.
Q: Okay. And then you found out and you came down to bail him out?
A: Yes.
Q: And when did you come to court to bail him out?
A: Monday morning.
Q: Okay. And that would’ve been —
A: The 5th.
Q: The 5th. Okay.
A: Or the 6th.
Q: Okay. And you proposed yourself as a surety and he was granted bail? Is that correct?
A: Right. He was granted bail on the Tuesday.
Q: Okay. And in relation to what offences was he granted bail?
A: Failure to appear on the assault charge.
Q: Okay. Now, I’m sorry, did you say which day he signed the bail paper?
A: Meaning which day he was released?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes. Tuesday, the 7th.
Q: The 7th of October?
A: Correct.
Q: Okay. So for now three weeks, he’s been on bail?
A: Correct.
Q: And are you aware of the conditions of the bail?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And what are those conditions?
A: That he resides at 19 Jerry Street, that he refrain from the use of firearms and explosives, that he obeys the court date. So I’m to ensure that he appears in court, and that would be November the 5th, at 2:00 p.m. in – –
Q: That’s his next court date?
A: Yes. Court 114.
Q: Okay.
A: And that he is to refrain from any contact with Katie Watts or her place of work, her home or any place that would tend to go to.
Q: And in the three weeks that you’ve been supervising him, have you had any problems with him not following his bail?
A: None whatsoever.
Q: Okay. And you obviously live with him? Is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And do you see him every day?
A: Yes.
Q: And what does George do for a living?
A: He’s a radio program producer/director.
Q: Okay. And you work together?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And where do you work together?
A: At the moment, we work at Scope Entertainment in Toronto.
Q: Okay. And that original release, you signed that in what amount?
A: $ 2,000
Q: Okay. And now, if His Honour were to see fit to release Mr. Sheppard into your custody, would you prepared to sign bail again for him?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Okay. And now, I understand you don’t own your home? Is that correct?
A: No, we don’t.
Q: Okay. But you have some savings?
A: Yes.
Q: And how much do you have?
A: Almost $ 7,000.
Q: Okay. And how much would you estimate that you earn per week?
A: I earn $ 1,800 a week.
Q: Okay. And in what amount would you be willing to sign for?
A: I would – – whatever I have, I would be willing to sign for that.
Q: Okay. And what do you understand your duties to be in terms of surety – – as a surety?
A: Well, the duty counsel explained it to me that I’m really to act as the police outside in that I’m to ensure that he is – – meets every stipulation that the court puts on him and that if he fails to do anything whatsoever, I have to report it to the court – – to the police.
Q: And would you report him to the police?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Now, this complainant in the initial assault charge, Miss Katie Watts – –
A: Yes.
Q: – – when did you first learn about her?
A: I heard about her from the duty counsel on Monday morning, October the 5th, October the 5th.
Q: And that was the first time you learned of this woman?
A: Yes.
Q: And have you ever been contacted by this woman?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: When were you first contacted by her?
A: Monday night, when I went to court, at 9:00 in the morning, I was contacted by her in my house, Monday night, by phone.
Q: She called you?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And what did she say to you?
A: Well, she spoke with me about four or five times, that night, and she said things like, you know, she was in love with George and George was in love with her, they were having a future together. And I kind of lost it for about ten minutes. But after that, I tried to calm down the situation and I realized that she was very mercurial, she – – so, anyway.
Q: Okay. So that was the Monday night?
A: That was the Monday night.
Q: And then you got George released the following day?
A: Correct.
Q: And did you ever hear from this person again?
A: Yes. She called again Tuesday night.
Q: Okay.
A: But George and I said we shouldn’t answer the phone just in case we would be in, you know, in jeopardy of the bail requirements.
Q: And how do you it was her calling if you didn’t answer the phone?
A: You know, caller ID.
Q: Caller ID. Okay. And did she ever try to make any contact with you or George after that?
A: She left messages, I believe, on the Tuesday before we came home saying to me that she thought it would be good if she and I got together.
Q: Okay. And did you act on that?
A: No.
Q: Okay. And do you know if she made any other attempts to contact either you or George?
A: Yeah, she called George’s place of work – –
Q: Yes.
A: – – asking for him and she spoke with the production manager. She wanted to speak with him and she wanted money. The production manager referred her to the production accountant – –
MS. KEE: Your Honour, I think we’re going now into triple hearsay. I mean the first-hand – – the second-hand hearsay I was okay with. Triple hearsay is getting very far afield. I realize it’s a bail hearing but . . . .
THE COURT: It’s allowed in a bail hearing. It’ll go to weight.
MS. KEE: All right.
THE WITNESS: Anyway, the – – should I continue?
MR. PAIN: Q: Sorry, continue, please.
A: I can continue. So the production accountant said that she’d never heard of her, and she didn’t have a contract or invoices, or anything. So there was nothing she could do to help her.
Q: Okay. Now, did you or George take any steps to prevent any further contact with Miss Watts?
A: Yes, we were getting very nervous because the call kept coming in late at night. So George changed the phones, his cell phone and our home phone.
Q: So you changed the phone number?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.
A: I can’t remember when it was got in – – went into place.
Q: And if George is released on bail, do you believe that he will continue to obey his bail conditions?
A: Very much so.
Q: Okay. And are there any conditions that you would like to see placed upon him, in particular?
A: Whatever you – – whatever the court deems.
Q: Okay. And in relation to this arrest and Mr. Sheppard being here, today, do you know how he came to be here, today? When did he have contact with the police first in regards to today’s date?
A: October the 3rd.
Q: No, I mean he had his – – he got released, he got bail, you signed, he was out?
A: Right.
Q: When did he deal with police next?
A: Oh, two nights ago – – two days ago.
Q: What happened?
A: Detective Malloy called Scope because the phone numbers that he had were changed. So he called Scope, they got the number – – so George called, George – – George called the detective and that’s when they connected on these charges.
Q: And as a result of that, George turned himself in, this morning?
A: Right.
Q: Okay.
MR. PAIN: Those are my questions. Thank you.
MS. KEE: I have very few questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KEE:
Q: The alleged assault on Miss Watts on December the 28th, in 2002, did you become aware of that in April of this year?
A: I became aware of that on Monday, October the 5th, when I came into the duty counsel’s office, during the course of the day.
Q: Okay. And that was because Mr. Sheppard had been charged with failing to appear on the charge – –
A: Right.
Q: – – so there was the assault and the failing to appear before a court?
A: Right.
Q: And you testified, and you were accepted as a surety? Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And I’m just trying to understand the chronology. So that was on October the 5th?
A: That was the Monday, October the 5th, yes.
Q: And – –
THE COURT: I’m just looking at the calendar. Monday was the 6th.
THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.
THE COURT: That’s all right. And the Tuesday was the 7th, and the bail appears on the face of it to have been signed on the 7th.
MS. KEE: On the 7th, Your Honour. May I ask, Your Honour, I have some discrepancies in my synopsis. On the last set of Informations, the new ones, may I ask the offence date on those, on the assault?
THE COURT: The assaults – – they’re sworn on the 29th of October, the alleged assaults occurred – – the alleged assault occurred on October the 3rd.
MS. KEE: So prior to the bail being signed on the other charges?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. KEE: Q: When you bailed your – – signed bail for your husband – –
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: – – and you went home – –
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: – – did you ask him if there were any other incidents that you should be aware of?
A: He told me of – – he, he – -I don’t know what you’re trying to ask.
Q: Did he tell you about the October – – this incident that he’s in court, today, for?
A: Yes, he did, and so did Katie.
Q: When did he tell you about that, before or after you signed the first bail?
A: The first time I spoke with him was after I signed the bail. But I spoke with him on the phone from the Don Jail. So I can’t recall what we discussed.
Q: Okay. But when did you become aware that there was an additional charge of assault with Katie?
A: On October the 3rd you mean? Two nights ago.
Q: And that was – – and you become aware of that how?
A: Through Detective Malloy, through George.
Q: Had you been aware that there were two charges of assault, would you have initially agreed, and the other charges, agreed to have signed the recognizance?
A: Well, that’s what I was trying to say before. Yes, I would’ve because what I wanted
to emphasize is, since 1976, and I’ve never seen him raise his hand. So, do you know what I mean, like – –
Q: Yes.
A: It’s hard for me to believe it. Like I know the charges are very serious but it’s just hard for me to believe that aspect of it. Whenever, you know, George is into a situation, he always gets out of it verbally, through debate. And it’s, you know, I – –
Q: But you, also, since 1976, and I am trying not to be – – I don’t wish to cause you undue distress.
A: No, I don’t mind.
Q: But you were not aware that he was having an extramarital affair? Is that correct?
A: No, I am not. You’re right.
Q: So, therefore, you have been living with a man who has had in a sense a bit of a double life?
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Well, it’s a little bit of a double life in that we live together – – but yes, I can’t disagree.
Q: So you know a person and you know how they usually conduct themselves, and you would agree with me that if he doesn’t usually conduct himself by having affairs with other women, then you really don’t know how he’s going to react with somebody else?
A: Well, I know the measure of the man and I’m still am very strongly convinced that this — well, it’s, you know — I don’t know. I’m strongly convinced that he could never, never have been violent, especially toward a woman.
Q: But would you not as well have maybe four or five months ago said you were strongly convinced as well he could never have an affair with another woman?
A: Oh, I don’t know.
MS. KEE: Thank you. I have no more questions.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Can I just ask, is there any issue at all about drinking because one of these incidents allegedly occurred at a bar?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So does he drink?
THE WITNESS: He’s not an alcoholic, Your Honour, but he’s the type of person that can’t drink. He doesn’t know how to drink, he’s really a messy drinker, and he does have issues with alcohol. But we had a long talk about that last night and he said there’s no – – so I said that’s the hardest thing to do is not drink alcohol. And he said, believe me, I’m not going to do it. So, I don’t know.
THE COURT: Yes, anything arising out of that or anything in re-exam?
MR. PAIN: Nothing arising out of that, Your Honour.
MS. KEE: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. PAIN: That’s all the evidence I intend to call, Your Honour. If I can – –
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PAIN: Perhaps, Your Honour, first I can start by addressing the various releases and bring some clarity to that. One of the counts that Mr. Sheppard is facing is fail to comply by being in the presence of Ms. Katie Watts on the 3rd of October. Now, I attended the court clerk’s office this morning Your Honour has the original assault information before you. Mr. Sheppard was initially released on a promise to appear and an undertaking. One of the conditions was not to be — have any communication with Ms. Watts. But on the 10th of January, there was a variation of that undertaking, and there should be a signed copy there, and that condition was deleted. I believe it would be a blue piece of paper.
THE COURT: It’s here. It’s yellow. So there’s an undertaking given to a peace officer dated the 20th of December 2002 which has a condition of not to communicate with Katie Watts. And then there is a new bail order dated the 10th of January —
MR. PAIN: Yes.
THE COURT: — which does not have that condition.
MR. PAIN: Which does not have that condition.
THE COURT: So you’re saying on the 3rd of October, although there is a condition on the bail on the 7th of October not to have any contact with Kattie Watts, you’re saying on the 3rd of October —
MR. PAIN: On the 3rd of —
THE COURT: — that condition was not —
MR. PAIN: It was not there. So he was, in a sense, fine to be communicating with her.
THE COURT: Do you want to see this?
MS. KEE: Yes, please.
MR. PAIN: The second point regarding the releases, Your Honour, is, now, a bail is signed by Moira Grey on October 7th. These new allegations have to do with October 3. So I do not believe, Your Honour, in my submission, that a 524-application can apply to that bail because these offences were not committed while he was out on that bail. In fact, he’s been granted bail, he’s been out on bail for three weeks. Everything is fine. The complainant is, in fact, in the car with him when he’s pulled over by the police and given a roadside screening device, and the complainant does not come to the police until the 8th of October.
THE COURT: What day is he pulled over?
MR. PAIN: I’m sorry?
THE COURT: What day is that he’s pulled over and given an approved screening —
MS. KEE: I didn’t read that in.
MR. PAIN: I’m sorry.
MS. LEE: But please share it with us if you have that information.
MR. PAIN: I have it here in the synopsis.
THE COURT: So this is before or after the alleged assault?
MR. PAIN: Well, I have here on the same date and location, being October 3rd, the accused was stopped by the police while he was operating his motor vehicle. The officer administered a roadside breath test upon the accused. He registered a warning indicating the presence of alcoholic beverage. This is in contravention to condition G of that Undertaking. So this is basically at the same time that the assault is taking place because that was in the car, as well.
THE COURT: Does the second January release, does it have a condition of no alcohol?
MR. PAIN: Yes, it does. That’s the 10th of January. In any event, Your Honour, on this set of charges, on the primary grounds — now, Mr. Sheppard is facing a fail to appear charge but he was already show caused for that and it was determined that he was someone who was releasable on that. There are now two counts of fail to comply before the court but as I’ve pointed out, on one of them, it appears on the face of it that it may not —
THE COURT: I’m sorry, two ‘fail to comply’s?
MR. PAIN: Well, there was the one, being in contact with the complainant, and the other one relating to consumption of alcohol.
THE COURT: Is there one? Unless this one is — well, there’s one charge with two conditions. You’re right. The one charge has the condition of communicating and then a second condition of to abstain. Right. Yes.
MR. PAIN: He does have no criminal record whatsoever and that includes for any fail to appears, and whatnot. He’s been on bail for three weeks now without incident. In terms of the assault, it’s the complainant, the same complainant coming forward which, I would submit, she could’ve done on the third of October but —
THE COURT: But again, without talking – – without — getting into the offence itself, but it is your submission that she’s there on the 3rd of October but I don’t know what the allegation is in terms of the time of that assault on October 3rd, and when he was pulled over the police. I mean it could be that the alleged assault occurred after he was pulled over.
MR. PAIN: Okay.
THE COURT: Unless you have a time, unless there’s a synopsis which indicates the time of the assault and the information about the time of the police stop.
MR. PAIN: I don’t have that, at this point , Your Honour.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. KEE: I’m checking to see if I have anything. If I just may, Your Honour, I have and I’m just going — in the research criteria here, on the October the 8th at 8:27:03 an event was generated at 8:27:03. Advised boyfriend was drunk, assaulted her. When officers attended she was too distraught. Boyfriend George Sheppard , with date of birth. Occurred at Lincoln and Jarvis area. She was hit in the head and slammed in the pavement. She said the suspect is already in jail. Wants to make — report now. I’m trying to figure out when he was pulled over.
MR. PAIN: I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the date. That was the third of October, was it?
MS. KEE: No, he —
THE COURT: That’s October the 8th when the report was made.
MR. PAIN: Okay. So that’s several day afterwards. In any event, your Honour’s correct. There’s no information as to when the police meeting was in relation to when the alleged assault was. But in any event, Your Honour, there is some information before the court in terms of the complainant’s behaviour as well between the 3rd and the 8th and certain things that — in terms of phone calls, and whatnot, and certain steps that both Miss Grey and Mr. Sheppard have taken to try to avoid having any further contact with Miss Watts.
MS. KEE: I just have a little but more information I can share with counsel. This appears to be a supplementary report — and I’m sorry, Your Honour, I’m just finding the dates a little bit confusing. This was given on October the 8th. You can look over my shoulder with me. And when the police — the police were called to arrive, she advised that the suspect was driving the victim home from a bar that they had gone to earlier, that he was impaired and suffering from narcolepsy. Due to his state, he was belligerent and violent. They got into a dispute. The assault occurred. Now, this appears to have been on October the 3rd, though, and that she called October the 8th for some reason. If I can just find anything to do with the roadside.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PAIN: Well, my submission is, Your Honour, that he’s been on release for three weeks without any incident. He’s, I would submit, Your Honour, he’s demonstrated that he is someone who is releasable when all the factors are taken into consideration. Miss Grey has known him a long time. She sees him every day, throughout the day. She’s indicated that she would have no hesitation in calling the police if she were to find out that he was breaching his bail. And I would submit that Mr. Sheppard is suitable for release with certain conditions, again, should be — the same conditions as he has now but perhaps the amount, given the new charges, should be increased to $5000. And if your Honour feels there’s a problem with alcohol, then Your Honour ‘s certainly heard evidence as well that, through Miss Grey, that he would abstain from the consumption of alcohol.
THE COURT: Can I have those documents back if everybody’s finish with them?
MS. KEE: Yes, and if I just may. The roadside screening that my friend referred to occurred on October the 3rd, 2003. He had admitted to the police that he had a few drinks coming from a bar and smelled, and they made a demand that he provide a sample of his breath. And that was at about 2208.
MR. PAIN: Subject to any questions, Your Honour, those are my submissions.
THE COURT: Yes, Crown. Crown, anything else?
MS. KEE: I have to say, I’m quite perplexed why the charges were — there was a release and two charges, and these charges are before the court now. My concern, Your Honour, is that although his wife is certainly well meaning in coming forward to bail her husband out, it appears as if he has kept secrets from her and the fact that he was having an affair and drinking as he’s having the affair, is charged with assault, and it was not until he’s picked up on a fail to appear that she finds out about these incidents, Your Honour. I’m concerned that if there — that now that the court is aware of more than one assault before the court, that it’s advisable to continue his detention.
THE COURT: But do you, sorry, I was going to ask you, do you agree with the submission that the 524 does not apply?
MS. KEE: I don’t think it does now. Also, too, I’m concerned by the amount of contact that the wife has with the complainant and the complainant has with the wife, and I don’t know whether or not Mr. Sheppard has had contact as well. It seems to me my friend has made the submission that there is an order that is in existence that doesn’t bar him from having contact and it would seem to me that anybody who has been charged with this type of offence would want to avoid contact not to try to have an order without contact in it. So I was a little bit mixed up with my friend’s submissions on that.
MR. PAIN: There is now, Your Honour, and since October 7, the bail that Ms. Grey signed, there is an order that he not have contact.
THE COURT: And this variation, the undertaking given to a Justice, it occurred in this court. So this would’ve been on consent of the Crown?
MR. PAIN: Yes.
MS. KEE: So did Mr. Sheppard, and I’m sorry, I’m very confused, did Mr. Sheppard ask to have a variation then so he could have contact with the complainant?
THE COURT: well, I would – –
MS. KEE: That’s what it appears to me that he did.
THE COURT: Well, then it would appear that the Crown consented because how else would it occur in this court. There’s no jurisdiction here. It would have to have gone to the superior court —
MS. KEE: I don’t know —
THE COURT: If it was contested.
MS. KEE: Yeah. I have no notes in my files that say we contested. And I’m not disputing it, Your Honour, I just don’t have any information on it. And that variation is what causes me concern, that he wants to continue contact with Miss Watts.
MR. PAIN: Well, he doesn’t, Your Honour. I think at the time, back in January, there was some hope that the relationship would continue, but by October 3rd, it was quite clear that it’s just one big disaster. And on October the 7th, there was a condition ordered that he have no contact. And so he is under a condition not to have any contact as of now.
THE COURT: The 524 does not apply but it still is a reverse onus —
MS. KEE: in that he was on bail on October the 3rd when these alleged offences occurred?
MR. PAIN: I would agree with that, Your Honour
THE COURT: Yes. So since he’s been on bail, the last bail of October the 7th that his wife signed, he has not — there’s no obligation he’s committed any other offences. That’s of some significance, but also of significance is the fact that he was originally charged with assaulting an individual and somehow, that bail was changed to allow him to have contact and in that future contact, allegedly he breached the condition that he not consume alcohol. He had consumed alcohol and there was a further assault. And that causes me concern. It’s a reverse onus. The accused is 51 years of age. He has no criminal record. That’s the significance but he’s put himself in a situation where he has to either be detained so that the court can be satisfied there’s no contact with the complainant or that the terms be such that, and it’s of his doing, the terms be such that he’s in some form of house arrest.
MR. PAIN: Your Honour, may I just address that one point?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PAIN: The concern about the contact with the complainant, even according to the allegations, he basically waited until he got the okay to have contact with her again.
THE COURT: He didn’t get the okay to drink and he didn’t get the okay —
MR. PAIN: No, he didn’t.
THE COURT: — to strike anyone.
MR. PAIN: No, he didn’t. And —
THE COURT: Yes. And as the Crown has pointed out, there is a secondary —
MR. PAIN: Yes.
THE COURT: — or the double life, as the Crown calls it.
MR. PAIN: Yes. They are, of course, Your Honour, only allegations at this point and there is some other information before the court as to when the allegations came about. In any event, he’s — for three weeks, he’s been under order not to have any contact with her and there’s no information before the court that he has. In fact, his surety has testified that —
THE COURT: Three weeks may be a significant period of time but we’re but we’re talking about a release now and a trial date being set six months from now. So three weeks of not having breached his conditions isn’t enough to satisfy me without strict conditions.
MS. KEE: Your Honour, would the contact that his wife had with the victim be considered indirect contact? I’m concerned about that too, and I think I made that submission earlier and I’m not sure if I articulated it in a clear enough fashion.
THE COURT: Well, if somebody phones another individual and the individual picks up the phone and it happens to be somebody he can’t be in contact with, they can just hang up. It doesn’t —
MS. KEE: Yes.
THE COURT: And I assume that’s what the wife would do. If she got a call, she would hang up.
MR. PAIN: And they’ve taken the additional —
THE COURT: They’ve changed the phones. I understand, and that’s significant.
MR. PAIN: Well, then, in the circumstances, then perhaps Your Honour would consider something more restrictive in terms of both reporting and very strict measures in terms of when he’s allowed to go out and for what purpose.
THE COURT: I was thinking of a curfew with an exception for after the curfew, to be in the company of his wife.
MR. PAIN: Okay.
THE COURT: So he can go to work during the daytime and he’s not — so the terms are that he not have any communication directly or indirectly with Katie Watts. It’s going to be —
MS. KEE: Even though there’s not a 524 application, my friend would consent if there was a global bail before the courts on all three so there’s no conflict, Your Honour, with the different terms of release.
MR. PAIN: I think that would be fine, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Yes, there’ll be a global bail. Thank you. No contact directly or indirectly with Katie Watts. Not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code. And the other condition, as well, not to possess any until dealt with according to law, any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited weapon, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, explosive substance. To reside at 19 Jerry Street with your surety, be amenable to the routine and discipline of that household. And I’m just looking again at the October 7th bail. It’s not to be within 100 metres of any place Katie Watts, where she resides or is employed or happens to be. So that means if you don’t leave, you’re in breach of this order. You don’t have to be looking for her, if you come upon her, it’s enough; but certainly, you can’t be looking for her. And there’ll be a condition of not to possess or consume any alcohol whatsoever, and there’ll be a — yes, and not to go into any place that sells alcohol. What are his ordinary hours of work?
MR. PAIN: Sorry, his ordinary?
THE COURT: Hours of work.
MR. PAIN: The court’s indulgence. He advises me, Your Honour, when they’re actually recording, it can be as long as from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., when they’re recording.
MS. KEE: Does Miss Watts work in the radio industry, Your Honour, I don’t know, and if he’s on production sets, that’s going to cause — we’ll have to somehow finesse the release.
MR. PAIN: My understanding is they don’t work together. They have no further contact together.
THE COURT: Yes, there’ll be a curfew of 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., except for purposes of employment or in the company of the surety, and I’ll name the wife as the surety. And that’ll be in the amount of $5,000. Anything else that I should consider?
MR. PAIN: I’m just wondering, Your Honour, since this is a sort of global bail, what happens to all the other —
MS. KEE: They don’t exist anymore, and, once this is signed, and so there’s no conflicting terms.
THE COURT: And a return date?
MR. PAIN: November 5, please.
MS. KEE: On all counts?
MR. PAIN: On all counts, please.
MS. KEE: In 111 court, please?
THE COURT: Is it 111 or 114, at 2:00 p.m.?
MR. PAIN: He’s already scheduled for 114 for 2:00 p.m..
MS. KEE: I don’t see how this is a domestic matter it it’s his girlfriend that he’s not living with, Your Honour. Maybe we’ll let domestic Crowns figure that out.
THE COURT: Yes, I would think a domestic Crown would say that this was a domestic matter.
MR. PAIN: Yes, it’s got that big red stamp on it. So even if I go to 111, it’s going back.
THE COURT: 114, at 2:00 p.m.. At that point, it can go back to 111 if it’s that appropriate. I think it’s been made clear to you, Mr. Sheppard, that court orders are taken seriously by everyone. November 5th, 114, at 2:00 p.m..
MR. PAIN: Thank you, Your Honour. And I thank my friend as well.

Click to read the final verdict in this case

Click to read G.S.’s testimonial

________________________________END__________________________________

0


About the Author