Stay informed
Justice of the peace admonished for not listening to Crown during bail hearing
Alberta’s top court has quashed the contempt conviction for a Crown attorney who ran afoul of a justice of the peace who wouldn’t listen to him at a bail hearing.
Justice of the Peace Diane T. Luttmer ejected prosecutor James D. Wilson from her courtroom and convicted him of contempt this past May. The Court of Appeal recently overturned Wilson’s conviction.
“The right of a party to be heard … is a fundamental principle of natural justice,” said a recent decision out of Calgary from the three-judge panel.
“Breach of that right leads to a denial of natural justice, harms the reputation of the administration of justice, and raises concerns regarding the appearance of impartiality. It is clear that the (justice of the peace) in this case — for reasons not apparent in the transcript — was simply not willing to hear Crown counsel’s submissions on the facts and the law. Judicial officers may accept or reject submissions of counsel, but only after hearing and considering them. We recognize that judicial officers are only human and subject to being frustrated or irritated. However, regardless of a judicial officer’s frame of mind, counsel must be given the opportunity to present their submissions. The JP’s overall conduct in this case prevented the Crown from fulfilling its important role in the bail hearing.”
The court heard Luttmer was conducting a bail hearing on May 11, 2025, for a young man charged with mischief for damaging his grandfather’s garage door. Wilson was the prosecutor.
The young man’s lawyer objected to an abstinence clause and a weapons prohibition in his proposed release conditions, said the Appeal Court decision, dated Oct. 16.
Wilson asked for an adjournment because the young man’s lawyer was disputing “the admissibility of certain information in the police bail package,” and he wanted to “marshal the relevant evidence,” said the decision.
Luttmer denied Wilson’s request. She asked the Crown for the facts that would support a drug prohibition while the young man was out on bail.
Wilson “read directly from the police synopsis. The JP interrupted him. She stated she was losing patience, accused (Wilson) of overstepping and asked him directly what the allegation was. He began to answer but she interrupted him again. The JP admonished the appellant for interrupting her, then asked him for the factual nexus between the allegation and drug involvement. When he began to answer, she interrupted him again. After some overtalk, she admonished the appellant for getting into ‘extraneous information.’”
The JP asked Wilson how the young man’s charge was linked to drug use.
Wilson began speaking and Luttmer “interrupted him again,” said the decision.
Wilson told the JP “he had an obligation to put forward credible, trustworthy evidence.”
He asked to “tender the circumstances of the police investigation that led to the criminal charge,” said the decision.
“Before he finished his sentence, the JP interrupted, stating: ‘That is denied, Mr. Wilson.’ The JP directed that he answer only her question, nothing more.”
Wilson told her “drug paraphernalia had been found,” at the scene of the crime.
“The JP interrupted, telling (Wilson) he was coming very close to being removed from the courtroom for contempt of court.”
Luttmer again asked for more proof drugs were involved.
As Wilson “began to respond, the JP interrupted, stating: ‘It is a very simple question. What is the allegation about drug use?’”
Wilson told her the young man “was a habitual meth user. The JP interrupted him again. She admonished him for being non-responsive, characterizing his conduct as a refusal to answer her questions.”
The back and forth continued, with Luttmer saying she wouldn’t impose a weapons ban on the young man because Wilson wasn’t answering her questions.
Wilson informed Luttmer that knives were found on the young man during his arrest and officers had to use force to get him in custody.
“He alleged that the accused was resisting and had a history of carrying knives,” said the decision. “The JP interrupted again, asking about the history for the accused who had no record.”
Wilson started to respond when the JP interrupted him again.
Luttmer told Wilson to stop interrupting her.
“Well, you are interrupting the Crown,” Wilson responded.
Luttmer then told Wilson he was going to be removed from her courtroom.
“You are asking questions and interrupting the Crown,” he responded.
“You are in contempt of court, Mr. Wilson,” Luttmer said.
“This hearing is concluded. I am going to have the matter assigned to an alternative Crown. We are finished.”
The bail hearing continued that afternoon “with no prosecutor present at which time the accused was released on conditions which did not include a weapons ban or a prohibition on possessing illegal drugs,” said the decision.
The Appeal Court noted “there was nothing urgent” about the case.
Wilson “had a right to be heard in order to speak to the public perspective and interest,” said the decision.
Luttmer wasn’t clear on how Wilson was acting contemptuous, it said. “In summarily ejecting the appellant from the proceedings, the JP created an appearance of partiality.”
Luttmer “made a palpable and overriding error in finding (Wilson) to be in contempt of court when he was acting within his role as a Crown prosecutor and attempting to fulfill his duties and obligations to the administration of justice,” said the decision.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Unpublished Newswire
Comments
Be the first to comment