|
The applicant B was charged and convicted of two disciplinary offences, for which she was sentenced to time in solitary confinement. The inmate applied for certiorari to quash both the conviction and the sentence. In terms of the sentencing issue, it was noted that after convicting B the independent chairperson asked for submissions from B's counsel concerning the appropriate sentence. Once submissions were received from counsel the independent chairperson requested that the inmate and her counsel absent themselves from the hearing room in order to allow her to consult with the security representative and a representative from the institution's health care services. These discussions related to the B's disciplinary record, her dissociation record, the possible effects of further dissociation, her participation in institutional programs and her behaviour in general. Thereafter B and her counsel returned to the hearing room and the chairperson discussed the factors that she had considered in making her determination as to the appropriate sentence. At that point the sentence was imposed.
|
|
Rouleau J. refused the motion to quash the conviction, but granted B's request for certiorari quashing the two decisions of the chairperson relating to sentence. The matter was returned to the disciplinary tribunal for a rehearing as to the appropriate punishment for the inmate. Rouleau J. was satisfied that there was nothing inappropriate in having the inmate and her counsel absent from the hearing room while discussions took place between the chairperson and the two correctional officers concerning the appropriate punishment to be imposed in sentence. However, once B and her counsel returned to the hearing room and were advised of the factors on which the chairperson was relying in making her decision as to sentence, the duty of fairness incumbent on the chairperson required that the inmate be afforded the opportunity to make a reply or to rebut any of the information which influenced or persuaded the chairperson. Rouleau J. held that where, in this case, certain information was relied on to conclude that solitary confinement was an appropriate punishment, the inmate was entitled to be informed of all the facts considered to be relevant and to refute the information upon which the chairperson relied.
|
TOP