R. v. Hahn (C.), (2016) 472 Sask.R. 262 (CA)

• Judge: Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: January 07, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2016), 472 Sask.R. 262 (CA);2016 SKCA 7

R. v. Hahn (C.) (2016), 472 Sask.R. 262 (CA);

    658 W.A.C. 262

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.007

Christopher Hahn (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CACR2664; 2016 SKCA 7)

Indexed As: R. v. Hahn (C.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.

January 18, 2016.

Summary:

Hahn was convicted of criminal harassment, contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 17 months in jail to be followed by three years of probation. He appealed both his conviction and sentence. Hahn applied pursuant to s. 679 of the Code for release pending the outcome of his appeals.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Whitmore, J.A., in a decision reported at (2015), 467 Sask.R. 156; 651 W.A.C. 156, denied the application for release. Hahn sought a review of that decision under s. 680 of the Code.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, C.J.S., in a decision reported at (2015), 472 Sask.R. 176; 658 W.A.C. 176, made an order directing such a review. The following matters were now before the court: (a) an application by Hahn for the appointment of counsel pursuant to s. 684 of the Code; (b) the s. 680 review; and (c) an application by Hahn to bifurcate the hearing of his sentence and conviction appeals. During oral submissions, Hahn indicated that he was no longer seeking the bifurcation of his sentence and conviction appeals.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal granted Hahn's application for court-appointed counsel. His application for release pending his appeals was denied.

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 3320 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3320

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Review - Hahn was convicted of criminal harassment, contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code - He was sentenced to 17 months in jail and three years of probation - He appealed both his conviction and sentence - Hahn applied pursuant to s. 679 of the Code for release pending the outcome of his appeals - Whitmore, J.A., denied the application for release - Hahn then sought a review of that decision under s. 680 of the Code - Richards, C.J.S., made an order directing such a review - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal denied Hahn's application for release - The Crown did not suggest that Hahn's appeal was frivolous and Hahn had established that he would surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of a release order - However, Hahn failed to establish that his detention was not necessary in the public interest - The court stated that "The offence in issue here - criminal harassment of a judge - is significant in that it goes to the heart of the operation of the justice system. Although Mr. Hahn is fully entitled to take issue with his conviction, the reality is that, as of this point in time, he has been convicted of the offence in question. Moreover, he is completely unmoved by the conviction and alleges various forms of corruption and wrongdoing, not just by the victim in this case, but by a variety of judges and lawyers who have been involved in his family and criminal law issues over time. Mr. Hahn also appears to be determined to take further action against those he believes have wronged him. Although he says he will act lawfully in this regard, it is difficult to ignore the Crown's concerns on this front. In all of these circumstances, it follows that Mr. Hahn should not be released pending the outcome of his appeals" - See paragraphs 8 to 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 4974

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to appoint counsel for accused - Hahn was convicted of criminal harassment, contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code - He was sentenced to 17 months in jail and three years of probation - He appealed both his conviction and sentence - Hahn applied for the appointment of counsel pursuant to s. 684 of the Code - Hahn had been denied assistance from Legal Aid - He submitted that he needed the assistance of a lawyer in order to effectively advance his appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "given the grounds of appeal identified in the Notice of Appeal, an offender with Mr. Hahn's level of literacy and intelligence should be able to present this appeal reasonably effectively on his own, and the Court should be able to properly decide the appeal without the help of counsel. However, this is not an ordinary appeal. The victim is a sitting member of the Court of Queen's Bench and the trial judge is a sitting member of this Court. In those circumstances, it is important that justice not only be done but that it be seen to be done as well. Accordingly, in the exceptional situation here, I conclude that it is desirable in the interests of justice that Mr. Hahn have the assistance of counsel" - See paragraphs 4 to 7.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Woods (D.N.) (2012), 433 Sask.R. 1; 602 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SKCA 67, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Daniels (H.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 369; 35 O.R.(3d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Cooper (A.R.) (2000), 286 A.R. 235; 253 W.A.C. 235; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 420; 2000 ABCA 75, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Harun (D.), [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 615; 2011 ONCA 699, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Lacasse (T.) (2015), 478 N.R. 319; 2015 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985. c. C-46, sect. 680 [para. 2]; sect. 684(1) [para 4].

Counsel:

Christopher Hahn appearing on his own behalf;

W. Dean Sinclair, Q.C., for the respondent;

Lorna Hargreaves, for Court Services.

These applications were heard on January 7, 2016, before Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Richards, C.J.S., on January 18, 2016.