Bail decisions are largely shaped by private, out-of-court negotiations between Crown attorneys and defence lawyers. While accused persons rely on the professional expertise of defence lawyers to navigate bail negotiations and secure them the best possible outcome, much remains unknown about how lawyers prepare for and negotiate bail. This study examines the process of bail preparations and negotiations from the defence’s perspective based on data from 18 semi-structured interviews with defence lawyers. The findings show that, while defence lawyers argue for reasonable bail terms, their ultimate goal is to obtain a release for their client. Defence lawyers also prioritize collecting and strategically using information about the case and the Crowns and justices with whom they work. They often adopt a risk-averse and cooperative approach with Crowns to avoid delaying or preventing their client’s release, even if that means agreeing to additional conditions. Our findings inform efforts to reform bail processes.

Youths in care are among the most vulnerable youths in our society. All youths in care have experienced trauma and sometimes exhibit trauma-induced behaviours which are perceived by others as disruptive or dangerous. The police are frequently called, which begins a cycle of criminalization for many youths, with racialized youths overrepresented in this group. Using an intersectional theoretical framework, this article shows how discriminatory perceptions of race and mental health influence justice system actors’ decision-making, from arrest to bail. Drawing on data from qualitative interviews with twenty-five young adults (ages 18 to 24) who have had contact with the child welfare and criminal justice systems and ten practicing lawyers in Ontario, the analysis reveals race-based differences in justice system actors’ responses to mental illness. Discriminatory views function as a lens through which racialized and mentally ill youths leaving care are perceived as threats and met with more punitive responses.

Over the last decade, there has been a spate of incidents in Canada and the United States involving Saudi Arabian nationals who, while out on bail for predominantly sexual crimes, were able to abscond from the countries despite having surrendered their passports. Investigation has revealed evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the government of Saudi Arabia has, in fact, assisted its nationals to escape on these occasions. This article makes the case that this kind of conduct amounts not just to unfriendly acts but also to infringements upon the territorial sovereignty of both states and serious breaches of the international law of jurisdiction. It surveys the possible remedies available to both injured states and, in light of the fact that neither state has sought any such remedy, examines possible remedial routes for the victims of the Saudi nationals’ crimes. It remarks upon the utter failure of either Canada or the United States to address these acts, concluding that such wilful neglect both corrodes sovereignty and undermines the will to address sexual crimes.

This paper argues that lower courts have used their discretionary powers provided within legislation and St-Cloud to infuse a predominantly retributive interpretation into the public confidence in the administration of justice ground of pre-trial detention. This is illustrated notably by their choice of and weight afforded to the various aggravating and mitigating factors, the circumstances that relate to the commission of the offence, as well as their analysis of the length of imprisonment. This transfer of sentencing rationales, and to a greater extent, retributivism, into the third ground of pre-trial detention is used, in part, to justify pre-trial detention and can partially explain the rates of pre-trial detention. Finally, the underlying sentencing logic within the bail process can be understood within a sociological perspective, which examines the wider social functions of institutions and suggests that the bail process is an extension of punishment that serves to reinstate social order and public confidence.

This article examines the problematic enforcement of the right to personal liberty in Cameroon. It offers a critical review of that right by assessing its compatibility with international standards endorsed by article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It finds that, although a small number of provisions are not sufficiently robust to protect that right adequately, for the most part the Cameroonian provisions reflect international standards. In the light of that assessment, the article seeks to identify the impediments to the effective enforcement of the right and to recommend the most effective and feasible mechanisms for developing a robust enforcement framework for the protection and promotion of the right to personal liberty in Cameroon.