| C
sought judicial review of a decision by the CSC to involuntarily transfer
him to the SHU. The notice from the prison authorities gave to C the following
reasons for his transfer: "Information of a confidential nature from various
information sources has identified you as taking an active part in the
preparation of an armed escape with two fellow inmates. Further, your
cell was found to contain a .12 rifle cartridge, saw blades concealed
in a mirror and a ventilator motor. A search of your person disclosed
pieces that could be used to connect drill bits to the motor." C did not
deny that unauthorized items were found in his cell and he provided explanations
that were not accepted. He especially objected to the charge of "taking
an active part in the preparation of an armed escape together with two
fellow inmates", which he categorically denied. C's charge that the prison
authorities failed to provide information resulted from this reason for
the notice for transfer. His counsel, fully aware of the case law on the
point, did not insist on knowing the names of the informers, but he wanted
to know with which fellow inmates his client was supposed to have prepared
an armed escape and how he "took an active part". He further objected
to the fact that the authorities did not simply lay a charge under the
Disciplinary Code of having contraband in his possession, which would
have given him an opportunity to offer explanations and would have been
less serious for him than a notice of transfer to the SHU. On November
6, 1987 C received his notice of transfer and was given forty-eight hours
in which to submit any comments on this recommendation. Instead of making
comments in writing, the C telephoned the Deputy Director in an attempt
to avoid the transfer, but without success. On November 25, 1987 the prison
authorities told him that as he had failed to answer the notice recommending
transfer they intended to implement the recommendation, and at this time
he was given the progress summary. On December 10, 1987, when all the
deadlines for doing so had long since expired, C submitted his comments,
arguments and submissions through his counsel to the high maximum security
case committee. The prison authorities acknowledged receipt of these submissions
(Dec 17, 1987) and agreed to reopen the investigation. On January 21,
1988 the committee ruled on the applicant's case after considering his
counsel's representations, and recommended to the Deputy Commissioner
of the Correctional Service that C be placed in the SHU. The Deputy Commissioner
approved this recommendation on February 9, 1988. On February 25 following,
C submitted his application for certiorari under s18 of the Federal Court
Act. The issue before the Court: Did the prison authorities act fairly
toward the inmate in making their decision? |
|
In dismissing the application, Denault J. was not persuaded by C that the prison authorities did not carry out their duty to act fairly in making the decision to transfer him to the SHU. C fully realized the nature of the charge against him and apparently sought to minimize his involvement in the escape conspiracy, by trying to maintain that his participation consisted only of making a .12 calibre rifle and by providing information on the hiding-place of a .12 calibre bullet, when it had already been found. Further, he had an opportunity to defend himself even though the forty-eight-hour notice had long expired, and the record indicates that his submissions were taken into consideration before the decision was made. He undoubtedly would have preferred that a charge simply be laid before the disciplinary tribunal, but this choice of means is for the prison authorities to make. His objection was thus more to the advisability than the legality of the decision. In the case at bar the confidential information about a possible escape, the discovery of various items including those found in the applicant's cell, the meetings between C and the Deputy Director and the statements made by C in an effort to minimize his participation in the scheme were sufficient to connect him with the preparation of an armed escape, and are all facts which he was told of by the prison authorities. The decision to transfer him was made after the applicant had had plenty of opportunity to make submissions. The application for certiorari was dismissed.
|
TOP