Top News

Judge expresses concern of timing of bail review applications

Tanner Healey has pleaded guilty for a home invasion in Reidville last fall.
Tanner Healey has pleaded guilty for a home invasion in Reidville last fall. - Star file photo

A Corner Brook judge will be making it known to the superintendent of prisons the Criminal Code of Canada is to be adhered to when it comes to applying for administrative bail reviews.

Supreme Court judge George Murphy was presiding over such an application brought forth on behalf of Tanner Healey on Wednesday.

Healey was arrested on Oct. 8 in connection with an alleged home invasion in Reidville and denied bail a few days later. The Deer Lake man, one of four charged, has been at Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s ever since.

Administrative bail reviews are mandatory under Section 525 of the Criminal Code. Ninety days after a person charged with an indictable office has been in custody the institution where that person is being held must apply for an administrative bail review.

The judge hearing the application may decide whether or not the accused should be released and take into consideration whether the prosecutor or the accused has been responsible for any unreasonable delay in the matter going to trial.

Healey entered guilty pleas to three charges — break and entering with intent, being disguised with intent and the use of a firearm in committing robbery — in provincial court on March 6 and his sentencing was set for April 19.

The charges carry a mandatory minimum of at least four years in jail.

Crown attorney Adam Sparkes told Murphy that he didn’t see the need for a hearing on the application given the situation with the case and the fact Healey is facing a significant period of time in jail.

Murphy agreed, but said he would adjourn the application instead of dismissing it.

Neither Healey nor his lawyer Jamie Luscombe were present.

Murphy then expressed his concern with the timing of the application.

It was signed on Feb. 12, a month after the 90 days.

He said the code requires these applications to be brought forward upon the expiry of the relative time period and because the code requires it, it should be adhered to.

In Healey’s case, he said there was no need to conduct a full hearing because the matter will proceed through the court process in a satisfactory manner.

“Every now and then there’s going to be a case that doesn’t and which will need to go for a hearing.”

Recent Stories