LAWYERS DOUBT TOUGHER BAIL RULES

`Reverse-Onus' Plan A Short-Term Solution: Expert

New Criminals Will `Step Into Shoes' Of Those Jailed

Prime Minister Paul Martin's proposal to keep individuals charged with
gun offences locked up under so-called "reverse onus" bail rules has
sparked a sharp debate among lawyers and civil libertarians.

Martin's promise -- made during weekend phone calls to Premier Dalton
McGuinty and Mayor David Miller -- would see those charged with gun
offences imprisoned without bail unless they show why they should be
released.

Instead of the Crown arguing the suspect should be kept in jail,
reverse onus asks the suspect to prove to a judge that bail is warranted.

"We're very much in favour of the reverse onus in terms of gun
crimes," Martin said, noting the approach was effectively used to
combat Quebec's notorious biker gangs "and has withstood the test of
time."

But the proposal is at best "a short-term solution," said Alan Young,
a criminal law professor and passionate defender of civil rights who
teaches at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School.

"Something has to be done in the short term, because we have created a
panic in our community," Young said.

The lawyer added that reverse onus bail, strict supervision of accused
gun criminals out on bail and tougher gun sentences are all
"short-term solutions that can serve to remove potentially dangerous
people from the streets."

But other criminals will simply replace those in jail unless more
effective long-term solutions are brought into play, Young stressed.

"Without the long-term vision there will be other dangerous people to
step into the shoes of the people who are detained."

Canadian courts already use reverse onus bail rules for certain
offences, such as drug trafficking, which has been upheld by the
Supreme Court of Canada. "It strikes me if you can have a reverse onus
for selling drugs surely you can have a reverse onus for a dangerous
weapon offence," Young said.

But a more effective solution, Young said, would include education and
school programs that give troubled youngsters between the ages of 10
and 13 alternatives to gang behaviour.

Young wasn't the only lawyer with doubts.

Criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby said "reverse onuses don't generally make
a lot of difference" because judges tend to take into account the
circumstances of the alleged offence and the accused.

"It sounds good, which makes for good politics, but it doesn't make
much difference," Ruby said.

Senior city, provincial and federal officials are to meet in Toronto
tomorrow to discuss the new approach.

Also on the agenda will be involving the RCMP and OPP in gun control
issues, and ensuring the effective delivery of social programs.

Reverse onus is also used in cases involving terrorism, membership in
criminal organizations and offences allegedly committed while a person
is already out on bail.

But some experts question whether bail is the right target. Toronto
criminal lawyer Frank Addario said yesterday that the federal proposal
isn't realistic because "there is no evidence that reasonable access
to bail is the problem.

"The problem," Addario said, "is access to guns.

"If the Prime Minister really wanted to do something he could do
things like pour money into border security, create a cash amnesty for
turning in handguns, and do something to alleviate the hopelessness in
the communities where gun violence has been the biggest problem."

Addario also challenged what he called "the myth, fuelled by some
recent media commentary, that judges don't take gun crime seriously
enough.

"It's not true," he said.

Addario did, however, play down a suggestion that reverse onus
hearings on gun charges could clog up the courts, saying, "there are
already so many, a few more won't make a difference."

Criminal lawyer Steven Skurka also had some advice for Martin
yesterday as the public controversy over the proposed measure
intensified.

"Don't rush," Skurka said.

"No doubt there is a heartfelt crisis in the community with respect to
guns but it is important to proceed with caution.

"This measure could have significant impact," Skurka
added.

"It could lead to more people being detained in custody before their
trial is heard and the issue of their guilt or innocence is decided."