R. v. Alcantara (J.R.) et al., (2014) 577 A.R. 381

• Judge: Watson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: July 31, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 577 A.R. 381;2014 ABCA 255

R. v. Alcantara (J.R.) (2014), 577 A.R. 381; 613 W.A.C. 381 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. AU.018

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/respondent) v. Alan Peter Knapczyk (applicant/appellant)

(1203-0236-A; 2014 ABCA 255)

Indexed As: R. v. Alcantara (J.R.) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Watson, J.A.

August 11, 2014.

Summary:

The accused members of Hells Angels (Alcantara and Knapczyk), were charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, trafficking in cocaine, and conspiring and trafficking in cocaine for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization (Hells Angels). The accused were members of the Hells Angels who allegedly entered into an "exclusivity agreement" with a cocaine trafficking group, whereby the Hells Angels agreed to provide protection for the group's drug trafficking activities in exchange for monies.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2012), 547 A.R. 1, held that the accused were members of the conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Their role was to provide Hells Angel protection for the trafficking group, including removing persons interfering with the group's trafficking activities, resolving the problem of the theft of cocaine from one of the group's traffickers, and dealing with problems of bullying of the group's traffickers by other traffickers. The accused were guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and conspiring to traffic in cocaine for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization (the drug trafficking organization). However, as there was no evidence that the accused aided in the actual trafficking of cocaine, they were acquitted of trafficking in cocaine. Knapczyk was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for nine years and 259 days. Knapczyk appealed his convictions and applied for interim release pending the hearing of his appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., dismissed the application. Knapczyk failed to establish that his release would not be contrary to the public interest.

Criminal Law - Topic 3304

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Detention necessary in the public interest - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3310 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3310

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Release pending appeal - The accused, a full patch member of the Hells Angels, was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization (the drug trafficking organization) - His role was to provide Hells Angel protection for the trafficking group, including removing persons interfering with the group's trafficking activities, resolving the problem of the theft of cocaine from one of the group's traffickers, and dealing with problems of bullying of the group's traffickers by other traffickers - He was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years and 259 days - The accused appealed his convictions and applied for interim release pending the hearing of his appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., dismissed the application - Having been convicted, the accused no longer possessed the presumption of innocence - The court was satisfied that the accused raised grounds of appeal that were not frivolous and that he would surrender himself into custody if his appeal was dismissed - However, it was in the public interest that the accused remain in custody pending his appeal where the grounds of appeal lacked "sufficient strength to show the convictions are vulnerable and that it would be unjust to have the appellant remain in custody while the appeal goes forward. ... I am not persuaded that there is a clear indication of material irregularity or legal error that pushes reviewability to the forefront".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dooley (E.A.) (2009), 257 O.A.C. 150; 249 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 2009 ONCA 910, leave to appeal denied (2010), 410 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Venneri (C.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 211; 432 N.R. 54; 2012 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Passey (D.M.) (1997), 209 A.R. 191; 160 W.A.C. 191; 1997 ABCA 343, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. McNaughton (S.D.) (2010), 487 A.R. 130; 495 W.A.C. 130; 2010 ABCA 97, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Rhyason (B.P.) (2006), 384 A.R. 146; 367 W.A.C. 146; 208 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2006 ABCA 120, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Gingras (J.G.) (2012), 330 B.C.A.C. 102; 562 W.A.C. 102; 293 C.C.C.(3d) 100; 2012 BCCA 467, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Will (J.B.E.) (2013), 405 Sask.R. 270; 563 W.A.C. 270; 2013 SKCA 4, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Roussin (B.) (2011), 275 Man.R.(2d) 46; 538 W.A.C. 46; 2011 MBCA 103, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Hogg (J.L.) (2013), 335 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 227; 1040 A.P.R. 227; 2013 PECA 4, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Mapara (S.) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358; 332 N.R. 244; 211 B.C.A.C. 1; 349 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Wu (2010), 266 C.C.C.(3d) 482; 2010 ABCA 337, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Yumnu (I.) (2010), 269 O.A.C. 48; 2010 ONCA 637, affd. (2012), 437 N.R. 289; 290 C.C.C.(3d) 323; 2012 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Wang (J.C.) (2013), 340 B.C.A.C. 221; 579 W.A.C. 221; 2013 BCCA 311, leave to appeal denied [2013] N.R. TBEd. Motion 506 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. N.Y. (2012), 298 O.A.C. 297; 2012 ONCA 745, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. J.F., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 565; 440 N.R. 69; 301 O.A.C. 156; 2013 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Melnychuk (C.E.) (2008), 432 A.R. 290; 424 W.A.C. 290; 2008 ABCA 189, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Cador (S.C.) (2010), 487 A.R. 93; 495 W.A.C. 93; 2010 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Yates (W.F.) (2011), 499 A.R. 252; 514 W.A.C. 252; 2011 ABCA 43, leave to appeal denied (2012), 435 N.R. 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Abbey (W.N.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 9; 246 C.C.C.(3d) 301; 2009 ONCA 624, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Tremblay, 2014 QCCA 355, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Boswell (L.) (2011), 280 O.A.C. 283; 277 C.C.C.(3d) 156; 2011 ONCA 283, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Sekhon (A.S.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 272; 454 N.R. 41; 351 B.C.A.C. 1; 599 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Jacobs (P.G.) (2014), 577 A.R. 3; 613 W.A.C. 3; 2014 ABCA 172, refd to. [para. 26].

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387; 416 N.R. 307; 2011 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Alcantara (J.R.) (2013), 544 A.R. 379; 567 W.A.C. 379; 2013 ABCA 163, leave to appeal denied [2014] N.R. TBEd. Motion 41 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Lucas (S.) (2014), 321 O.A.C. 199; 2014 ONCA 561, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Auclair (G.) et al., [2014] N.R. Uned. 3; [2014] 1 S.C.R. 83; 2014 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Cranston (R.) et al. (2008), 244 O.A.C. 328; 2008 ONCA 751, leave to appeal denied (2009), 401 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Bains (J.S.) (2010), 285 B.C.A.C. 227; 482 W.A.C. 227; 254 C.C.C.(3d) 170; 2010 BCCA 178, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. MacIntosh (E.F.) (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 274; 983 A.P.R. 274; 281 C.C.C.(3d) 291; 2011 NSCA 111, affd. [2013] 2 S.C.R. 200; 443 N.R. 32; 329 N.S.R.(2d) 395; 1042 A.P.R. 395; 2013 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Trotter, Gary T., The Law of Bail in Canada (3rd Ed.) (2010 looseleaf), p. 10-29, note 123 [para. 7].

Counsel:

J.D. Martin, for the respondent/respondent;

S.M. Renouf, Q.C., and A.L. Bedari, for the applicant/appellant.

This application was heard on July 31, 2014, before Watson, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on August 11, 2014.