R. v. Hahn (C.),

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Richards
• Neutral Citation: 2015 SKCA 148
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Date: 22 December 2015
• Citation: 2015 SKCA 148,(2015), 472 Sask.R. 176 (CA),472 SaskR 176,(2015), 472 SaskR 176 (CA),472 Sask.R. 176

R. v. Hahn (C.) (2015), 472 Sask.R. 176 (CA);

    658 W.A.C. 176

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.079

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

(CACR2664; 2015 SKCA 148)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S.

December 22, 2015.

Summary:

Hahn was convicted of criminal harassment of a judge pursuant to s. 264 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 17 months in jail. Hahn appealed both his conviction and sentence. He applied pursuant to s. 679 of the Code for release pending the outcome of his appeal.

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 subsequently filed a notice of motion styled as being what would amount to a second application for interim release pursuant to s. 679.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, C.J.S., found that the motion was essentially a critique of the decision rendered by the chambers judge and, as a result, proceeded as if Hahn was asking for a review of the chambers decision as per s. 680 of the Code. The court held that Hahn was entitled to a review of the chambers judge's denial of his application for interim release pursuant to s. 680 of the Code.

Criminal Law - Topic 3320

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Review - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3325 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3325

Interim release of accused pending appeal - Review of release - Scope of - Hahn was convicted of criminal harassment of a judge pursuant to s. 264 of the Criminal Code - He was sentenced to 17 months in jail - Hahn appealed both his conviction and sentence - He applied pursuant to s. 679 of the Code for release pending the outcome of his appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Whitmore, J.A., denied the application for release - Hahn subsequently filed a notice of motion styled as being what would amount to a second application for interim release pursuant to s. 679 - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, C.J.S., found that the motion was essentially a critique of the decision rendered by the chambers judge and, as a result, proceeded as if Hahn was asking for a review of the chambers decision as per s. 680 of the Code - Section 680 empowered a Chief Justice or his or her delegate to order a review, by the Court of Appeal, of a decision made by a single judge under s. 679 - With respect to the basis on which a Chief Justice should decide whether to direct a review, the court proceeded on the basis that Hahn's application should be allowed if his application for interim release had arguable merit - In considering the arguable merit issue, it was necessary to remember that the nature of the review conducted by the court on the second stage of the s. 680 process was broad and was undertaken without deference to the decision under review - The court held that Hahn had an arguable case to the effect that he should be released from custody pending his appeal - He was therefore entitled to a review of the chambers judge's denial of his application for interim release, pursuant to s. 680 of the Code.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lewis (C.S.) (2010), 350 Sask.R. 241; 487 W.A.C. 241; 2010 SKCA 54, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Dombowsky (J.K.) (2013), 423 Sask.R. 145; 588 W.A.C. 145; 2013 SKCA 96, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Mah (J.M.) (2014), 433 Sask.R. 222; 602 W.A.C. 222; 2014 SKCA 26, refd to. [para. 7].

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

R. v. Gale (G.C.), [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 124; 2011 ONCA 144, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Allen (2001), 45 C.R.(5th) 242; 2001 NFCA 44, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. R.J.H., [2012] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 32; 2012 NLCA 30, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Cain (L.P.), [2008] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 9; 2008 NSCA 13, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. R.W.K. (2013), 340 B.C.A.C. 318; 579 W.A.C. 318; 2013 BCCA 387, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Daniels (H.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 369; 35 O.R.(3d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Cooper (2000), 286 A.R. 235; 253 W.A.C. 235; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 420; 2000 ABCA 75, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Hardiman (C.L.) (2003), 211 N.S.R.(2d) 358; 662 A.P.R. 358; 2003 NSCA 17, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Klein (G.J.) (2003), 241 Sask.R. 104; 313 W.A.C. 104; 2003 SKCA 119, refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 680 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Christopher Richard Hahn, on his own behalf;

Andrew S. Davis, for Her Majesty the Queen.

This motion was heard before Richards, C.J.S., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following fiat on December 22, 2015.