|
The applicant sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to release him
from the SHU Phase I back to the SHU Phase IV (the general population
of a maximum-security institution on probation). The applicant had been
designated a SHU prisoner and had progressed to Phase IV. He was allegedly
involved in a fracas with another prisoner resulting in the other prisoner
having to be hospitalized. The applicant was charged with attempted murder
and aggravated assault and transferred back to Phase I of the SHU. At
trial, the applicant was acquitted and as a consequence he argued that
he should be returned to Phase IV. The assertion was that he was being
punished for an offence of which he had been acquitted and was, therefore,
being subjected to double jeopardy contrary to s11 of the Charter. The
prison authorities took the position that the applicant had violated his
probation in the Phase IV program because of the assault. In dismissing
the application, the Court held that the SHU process set out in the Commissioner’s
Directives were neither civil nor criminal proceedings but rather, were
internal proceedings designed to foster the well being of the particular
community and to prevent the staff and other residents of that community
from danger against the threat of harm. The applicant had not been returned
to Phase I because of any breach of any duty which the criminal Code imposed
upon him or which he owed to society as a whole, but because of his breach
of the conditions of his probation to the effect that he refrained from
conducting himself in such a manner as to commit or to be likely to commit
a violent or dangerous act. In the Court’s view, the acquittal of the
applicant in criminal proceedings was of no relevance. |
TOP