Importance Of Reinterpretation By The Supreme Court

1206 Words 5 Pages
Reinterpretation by the Supreme Court leads to inconsistency in approach

The shift in approach and lack of consistency is also evidenced in the approach taken in Hall then subsequently reinterpreted in St- Cloud. In Hall, the issue was regarding the tertiary ground for denying bail, the Supreme Court made statements regarding the rare circumstances that the tertiary ground would be used. The Chief justice stated that “while the circumstance in which recourse to this ground for bail denial may not arise frequently, when they do it is essential that a means of denying bail may be available.”(657) During the period after the decision in Hall, the lower courts had adopted the approach that the ground was intended to be used in rare cases. But
…show more content…
But assuming that the majority decision in Hall was misinterpreted, the unanimous decision in St-Cloud that the tertiary ground should not be used rarely or sparingly still leads to an inconsistency considering the fact that in Hall there was a strong dissent in which Iacobucci J. stated that “section 11 (e) of the charter calls particularly on the courts, as guardians of liberty, to ensure that pre-trial release remains the norm rather than the exception to the norm.” (p659) Additionally, the court pronounced that “denial of bail must be confined to a “narrow set of circumstances” related to the proper functioning of the bail system.” (p658) Moreover, describing the case before them as “horrific, inexplicable and strongly linked to the accused” (658) as a basis of denying bail on the tertiary ground …show more content…
(p 666) Although the provision does not list that as a criterion, the Supreme Court did consider it to justify the denial of bail in such circumstance. It is not surprising that the lower courts would adopt the approach. Surely, the Supreme Court did not intent for that to be the only criteria to be considered for the tertiary ground, it sure was a factor that they considered to denial bail on the tertiary ground. The court clearly states that, if in those kinds of conditions, bail is not denied, there is a risk of losing confidence of the public. The claim that they were misinterpreted is not consistent with their approach in Hall. Whether the observation of crime that is “unexplainable” as a reason to deny bail is accurate or reasonable is up for debate. However, it is without merit that the court was misinterpreted since the Supreme Court did use it as a ground that should lead to the denial or bail, whether or not it was intended to be the only criteria is a different

Related Documents