View source for Sitting Position of the Accused at Trial

{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderTrials}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Accused in Court}}
The Criminal Code is silent on the issue of the sitting position of the accused. It is understood at common law that the sitting arrangement of the accused in the court is in the sole discretion of the trial judge.<ref> R v Levogiannis, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frxq 1993 CanLII 47], [1993] 4 SCR 475{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}} at para 53<br>
R v Lalande [http://canlii.ca/t/1f9np 1999 CanLII 2388] (ON CA), [1999] O.J. No. 3267{{perONCA|Borins JA}}{{at|19}}("Where an accused person sits during his or her trial is within the discretion of the presiding judge, to be determined in the interests of a fair trial and courtroom security")<br>
R v Rafferty, [http://canlii.ca/t/fr9w8 2012 ONSC 1009] (CanLII){{perONSC|Heeney J}}{{at|3}}<br>
</ref>

Custom dictates that the accused is to be placed in the dock.<ref>
R v Ahmad et al., [http://canlii.ca/t/2bxvv 2010 ONSC 1777] (CanLII){{perONSC|Dawson J}}{{at|4}}<br>
R v Gervais [http://canlii.ca/t/1wd19 2001 CanLII 28428] (ON SC){{perONSC|Campbell J}}</ref> 
This expectation does not violate the accused’s Charter rights.<Ref>
Gervais{{ibid}} at para 8</ref>

'''Visibility of Accused'''<br>
The trier of fact should be able to see the accused during the trial.<ref> 
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f86h 2010 ONSC 7253] (CanLII){{perONSC|O’Marra J}}<br>
Rafferty{{supra}} at para 13</ref>
This interest may prevent the accused from requesting a seat at counsel table to give instructions.<ref>R v McCarthy, [http://canlii.ca/t/fqfjl 2012 CanLII 10661] (NL SCTD){{perNLSC| Goodridge J}} [refused request to sit at counsel table]</ref>

'''Two Lines of Authority'''<br>
The primary line of cases suggests that the accused should be placed in the dock unless the accused can establish "sound reason" to allow the accused to sit at counsel table.<ref>
Gervais{{supra}}<br>
Ahmad{{supra}} at para 4<br>
R v Vickerson, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mgzp 2006 CanLII 2409] (ON SC){{perONSC|DiTomaso J}}{{at|18}}</ref> 
It has further been suggested that the presumption should prevail unless "a miscarriage of justice has been established."<ref>
see R v Grandinetti [http://canlii.ca/t/4pvr 2003 ABCA 307] (CanLII), (2003) 178 CCC (3d) 449 (Alta. C.A.){{perABCA|per McFadyen JA}} at para 84 <br>
R v Badhwar, [http://canlii.ca/t/23jrr 2009 CanLII 23890] (ON SC){{perONSC|McIsaac J}}<br>
</ref>

The second line of cases suggests that the accused should be permitted to sit outside the dock "unless security considerations...[are] demonstrated to be necessary, or at least advisable, to ensure the safety of all involved."<ref>
Ahmad{{supra}} at para 5<br>
R v Smith, [http://canlii.ca/t/1rwtw 2007 CanLII 24094] (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 2579 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Trafford J}}<br>
R v Ramanathan, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cz5q 2009 CanLII 86223] (ON SC), [2009] OJ No 6233 (ON SC){{perONSC|Corbett J}}<br>
</ref>

When considering the sitting position the court should take into account the fairness of differential treatment between a person in custody and those released from custody.<ref>
Ahmad{{supra}} at para 7<br>
Gervais{{supra}} at para 16<br>
</ref>

'''Constitutionality'''<br>
The requirement to sit in the "prisoner's" dock does not violate the accused's charter rights, including the right to the presumption of innocence.<ref>
Gervais{{supra}} at para 8<br>
Vickerson{{supra}} at para 15 - no violation of presumption of innocence<br>
Sinclair{{supra}}<br>
R v JA, [http://canlii.ca/t/h306w 2017 ONSC 2043] (CanLII){{perONSC|O'Marra J}} at para 13<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Accused in Custody==
An accused is custody should remain in the dock unless there are "exceptional circumstances", such as 
"the length of the trial and the defendant's necessities, such as note taking".<ref>
R v Minoose,  [http://canlii.ca/t/2d985 2010 ONSC 6129] (CanLII){{perONSC|Kane J}}{{at|32}}<br>
</ref>

While generally not considered prejudicial, in certain cases, trial fairness should warrant a jury instruction to not draw any inference from the accused's presence in the "prisoner's" dock or the presence of sheriffs flanking the accused.<ref>
R v Spagnoli and Shore, [http://canlii.ca/t/fmjc9 2011 ONSC 4656] (CanLII){{perONSC|Hambly J}}{{At|7}}<br>
Minoose{{supra}} at para 33<br>
Rafferty{{supra}} at para 11</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}
==Sitting with Counsel==
Recommendations from the Morin Inquiry suggested that the accused be permitted to sit with counsel absent risk of danger.<ref>
see referenced in R v MT, [http://canlii.ca/t/257k5 2009 CanLII 43426] (ON SC){{perONSC|Nordheimer J}}<Br>
</ref>

The sitting location of the accused is entirely in the discretion of the trial judge.<ref>
R v JA, [http://canlii.ca/t/h306w 2017 ONSC 2043] (CanLII){{perONSC|O'Marra J}} at para 4<br>
</ref>
This discretion should not be interfered with unless it affects the right to full answer and defence.<ref>
JA{{ibid}} at para 4<br>
R v Levogiannis, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frxq 1993 CanLII 47] (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}} at para. 34<br>
R v Faid (1981), [http://canlii.ca/t/fp6fk 1981 ABCA 139] (CanLII), 61 CCC (2d) 28 (Alta. C.A.){{perABCA|Harradence JA}} at p. 40<br>
</ref>

'''Need to Consult with Counsel'''<br>
The importance of the accused to be able to consult with counsel is not an important factor where the court may have a recess for the purpose of consultation.<ref>
R v Arsoniadis, [http://canlii.ca/t/1r8cz 2007 CanLII 13505] (ON SC){{perONSC| Sproat J}}<br>
</ref>

'''Weapons'''<br>
There should be consideration of the risks involved with the accused bringing weapons and potentially attacking persons in court.<ref>
e.g. R v Lehoux, [http://canlii.ca/t/24j8c 1997 CanLII 14559] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Donald JA}} - accused obsessed with family court result attacks lawyer with weapon</ref>

'''Burden'''<br>
The onus is on the accused to establish that he should be permitted to sit at counsel table.<ref>
R v Davis, [http://canlii.ca/t/fp125 2011 ONSC 5567] (CanLII){{perONSC| van Rensburg J}} at para 11<br>
</ref>

'''Factors'''<br>
Factors have been suggested to determine whether to grant the request:<ref>
Minoose{{supra}} at para 32<br>
see also R v GC, [http://canlii.ca/t/fxj2l 2013 ONSC 2904] (CanLII){{perONSC|O'Marra J}}
</ref>
* the defendant's rights to a fair trial, to make full answer and defence, including the right to instruct counsel and courtroom security;
* whether the defendant is in custody
* whether there are security risks in sitting with counsel; and 
* whether visibility by the jury is affected

Security concerns such as the safety of having the accused flanked by Sheriffs at counsel table as opposed to the dock. <ref>
e.g. Rafferty{{supra}}</ref>

The court can consider the likelihood that constant communication between counsel and accused may distract the jury.<ref>
Arsoniadis{{Supra}} at para 11<br>
R v McCarthy, [http://canlii.ca/t/fqfjl 2012 CanLII 10661] (NL SCTD){{perNLSC| Goodridge J}} at para 6<br>
</ref>

Where it is not practical to consider counsel table for seating of accused, it can be a compromise to set-up a table in between the dock and defence counsel table.<ref>
e.g.  R v Turner, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dxcs 2000 CanLII 28390] (NL SCTD), [2000] N.J. No. 379{{perNLSC|Dymond J}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}