Sitting Position of the Accused at Trial: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 13:02, 24 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2018. (Rev. # 95915)

< Procedure and Practice
< Trials

General Principles

See also: 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.^[1]

Custom dictates that the accused is to be placed in the dock.^[2] This expectation does not violate the accused’s Charter rights.^[3]

Visibility of Accused

The trier of fact should be able to see the accused during the trial.^[4] This interest may prevent the accused from requesting a seat at the counsel table to give instructions.^[5]

Two Lines of Authority

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 the counsel table.^[6] It has further been suggested that the presumption should prevail unless "a miscarriage of justice has been established."^[7]

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."^[8]

When considering the sitting position, the court should consider the fairness of differential treatment between a person in custody and those released from custody.^[9]

Constitutionality

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.^[10]

↑ R v Levogiannis, 1993 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 475, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J, at para 53
R v Lalande, 1999 CanLII 2388 (ON CA), , [1999] OJ No 3267, per Borins JA, at para 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")
R v Rafferty, 2012 ONSC 1009 (CanLII), per Heeney J, at para 3
↑ R v Ahmad et al., 2010 ONSC 1777 (CanLII), per Dawson J, at para 4
R v Gervais, 2001 CanLII 28428 (ON SC), 49 CR (5th) 177, per Campbell J
↑ Gervais, ibid., at para 8
↑ R v Sinclair, 2010 ONSC 7253 (CanLII), OJ No 5749, per O’Marra J
Rafferty, supra, at para 13
↑ R v McCarthy, 2012 CanLII 10661 (NLSCTD), per Goodridge J [refused request to sit at counsel table]
↑ Gervais, supra
Ahmad, supra, at para 4
R v Vickerson, 2006 CanLII 2409 (ONSC), per DiTomaso J, at para 18
↑ see R v Grandinetti, 2003 ABCA 307 (CanLII), 178 CCC (3d) 449, per per McFadyen JA, at para 84
R v Badhwar, 2009 CanLII 23890 (ON SC), per McIsaac J
↑ Ahmad, supra, at para 5
R v Smith, 2007 CanLII 24094 (ONSC), [2007] OJ No 2579 (SCJ), per Trafford J
R v Ramanathan, 2009 CanLII 86223 (ONSC), , [2009] OJ No 6233 (ONSC), per Corbett J
↑ Ahmad, supra, at para 7
Gervais, supra, at para 16
↑ Gervais, supra, at para 8
Vickerson, supra, at para 15 - no violation of presumption of innocence
Sinclair, supra
R v JA, 2017 ONSC 2043 (CanLII), per O'Marra J, at para 13

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."^[1]

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.^[2]

↑ R v Minoose, 2010 ONSC 6129 (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 4830, per Kane J, at para 32
↑ R v Spagnoli and Shore, 2011 ONSC 4656 (CanLII), per Hambly J, at para 7
Minoose, supra, at para 33
Rafferty, supra, at para 11

Sitting with Counsel

Recommendations from the Morin Inquiry suggested that the accused be permitted to sit with counsel absent risk of danger.^[1]

The sitting location of the accused is entirely in the discretion of the trial judge.^[2] This discretion should not be interfered with unless it affects the right to full answer and defence.^[3]

Need to Consult with Counsel

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.^[4]

Weapons

There should be consideration of the risks involved with the accused bringing weapons and potentially attacking persons in court.^[5]

Burden

The onus is on the accused to establish that he should be permitted to sit at the counsel table.^[6]

Factors

Factors have been suggested to determine whether to grant the request:^[7]

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 include the safety of having the accused flanked by Sheriffs at the counsel table instead of the dock. ^[8]

The court can consider the likelihood that constant communication between counsel and the accused may distract the jury.^[9]

Where it is not practical to use the counsel table for the seating of the accused, it can be a compromise to set up a table in between the dock and the defence counsel table.^[10]

↑ see referenced in R v MT, 2009 CanLII 43426 (ONSC), 84 WCB (2d) 644, per Nordheimer J
↑ R v JA, 2017 ONSC 2043 (CanLII), per O'Marra J, at para 4
↑ JA, ibid., at para 4
R v Levogiannis, 1993 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 475, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J, at para 34
R v Faid, 1981 ABCA 139 (CanLII), 61 CCC (2d) 28, per Harradence JA, at p. 40
↑ R v Arsoniadis, 2007 CanLII 13505 (ONSC), per Sproat J
↑ e.g. R v Lehoux, 1997 CanLII 14559 (BC CA), per Donald JA - accused obsessed with family court result attacks lawyer with weapon
↑ R v Davis, 2011 ONSC 5567 (CanLII), per van Rensburg J, at para 11
↑ Minoose, supra, at para 32
see also R v GC, 2013 ONSC 2904 (CanLII), OJ No 2279, per O'Marra J
↑ e.g. Rafferty, supra
↑ Arsoniadis, supra, at para 11
R v McCarthy, 2012 CanLII 10661 (NLSCTD), per Goodridge J, at para 6
↑ e.g. R v Turner, 2000 CanLII 28390 (NLSCTD), , [2000] NJ No 379, per Dymond J

[1] R v Levogiannis, 1993 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 475, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J, at para 53
R v Lalande, 1999 CanLII 2388 (ON CA), , [1999] OJ No 3267, per Borins JA, at para 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")
R v Rafferty, 2012 ONSC 1009 (CanLII), per Heeney J, at para 3

[2] R v Ahmad et al., 2010 ONSC 1777 (CanLII), per Dawson J, at para 4
R v Gervais, 2001 CanLII 28428 (ON SC), 49 CR (5th) 177, per Campbell J

[3] Gervais, ibid., at para 8

[4] R v Sinclair, 2010 ONSC 7253 (CanLII), OJ No 5749, per O’Marra J
Rafferty, supra, at para 13

[5] R v McCarthy, 2012 CanLII 10661 (NLSCTD), per Goodridge J [refused request to sit at counsel table]

[6] Gervais, supra
Ahmad, supra, at para 4
R v Vickerson, 2006 CanLII 2409 (ONSC), per DiTomaso J, at para 18

[7] see R v Grandinetti, 2003 ABCA 307 (CanLII), 178 CCC (3d) 449, per per McFadyen JA, at para 84
R v Badhwar, 2009 CanLII 23890 (ON SC), per McIsaac J

[8] Ahmad, supra, at para 5
R v Smith, 2007 CanLII 24094 (ONSC), [2007] OJ No 2579 (SCJ), per Trafford J
R v Ramanathan, 2009 CanLII 86223 (ONSC), , [2009] OJ No 6233 (ONSC), per Corbett J

[9] Ahmad, supra, at para 7
Gervais, supra, at para 16

[10] Gervais, supra, at para 8
Vickerson, supra, at para 15 - no violation of presumption of innocence
Sinclair, supra
R v JA, 2017 ONSC 2043 (CanLII), per O'Marra J, at para 13

[11] R v Minoose, 2010 ONSC 6129 (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 4830, per Kane J, at para 32

[12] R v Spagnoli and Shore, 2011 ONSC 4656 (CanLII), per Hambly J, at para 7
Minoose, supra, at para 33
Rafferty, supra, at para 11

[13] see referenced in R v MT, 2009 CanLII 43426 (ONSC), 84 WCB (2d) 644, per Nordheimer J

[14] R v JA, 2017 ONSC 2043 (CanLII), per O'Marra J, at para 4

[15] JA, ibid., at para 4
R v Levogiannis, 1993 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 475, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J, at para 34
R v Faid, 1981 ABCA 139 (CanLII), 61 CCC (2d) 28, per Harradence JA, at p. 40

[16] R v Arsoniadis, 2007 CanLII 13505 (ONSC), per Sproat J

[17] .g. R v Lehoux, 1997 CanLII 14559 (BC CA), per Donald JA - accused obsessed with family court result attacks lawyer with weapon

[18] R v Davis, 2011 ONSC 5567 (CanLII), per van Rensburg J, at para 11

[19] Minoose, supra, at para 32
see also R v GC, 2013 ONSC 2904 (CanLII), OJ No 2279, per O'Marra J

[20] .g. Rafferty, supra

[21] Arsoniadis, supra, at para 11
R v McCarthy, 2012 CanLII 10661 (NLSCTD), per Goodridge J, at para 6

[22] .g. R v Turner, 2000 CanLII 28390 (NLSCTD), , [2000] NJ No 379, per Dymond J

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[Fr:Position_assise_de_l'accusé_au_procès]]{{Currency2|January|2018}}
 {{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>
+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 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>
+{{CanLIIRP|Levogiannis|1frxq|1993 CanLII 47 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 475}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}{{atL|1frxq|53}}<br>
-R v Rafferty, [http://canlii.ca/t/fr9w8 2012 ONSC 1009] (CanLII){{perONSC|Heeney J}}{{at|3}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Lalande|1f9np|1999 CanLII 2388 (ON CA)|, [1999] OJ No 3267}}{{perONCA|Borins JA}}{{atL|1f9np|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>
+{{CanLIIRx|Rafferty|fr9w8|2012 ONSC 1009 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Heeney J}}{{atL|fr9w8|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>
+{{CanLIIRx|Ahmad et al.|2bxvv|2010 ONSC 1777 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Dawson J}}{{atL|2bxvv|4}}<br>
-R v Gervais [http://canlii.ca/t/1wd19 2001 CanLII 28428] (ON SC){{perONSC|Campbell J}}</ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|Gervais|1wd19|2001 CanLII 28428 (ON SC)|49 CR (5th) 177}}{{perONSC|Campbell J}}</ref>
-This expectation does not violate the accused’s Charter rights.<Ref>
+This expectation does not violate the accused’s Charter rights.<ref>
-Gervais{{ibid}} at para 8</ref>
+{{ibid1|Gervais}}{{atL|1wd19|8}}</ref>
-'''Visibility of Accused'''<br>
+; Visibility of Accused
 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>
+{{CanLIIRP|Sinclair|2f86h|2010 ONSC 7253 (CanLII)|OJ No 5749}}{{perONSC|O’Marra J}}<br>
-Rafferty{{supra}} at para 13</ref>
+{{supra1|Rafferty}}{{atL|fr9w8|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>
+This interest may prevent the accused from requesting a seat at the counsel table to give instructions.<ref>
+{{CanLIIRx|McCarthy|fqfjl|2012 CanLII 10661 (NLSCTD)}}{{perNLSC| Goodridge J}} [refused request to sit at counsel table]</ref>
-'''Two Lines of Authority'''<br>
+; Two Lines of Authority
-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>
+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 the counsel table.<ref>
-Gervais{{supra}}<br>
+{{supra1|Gervais}}<br>
-Ahmad{{supra}} at para 4<br>
+{{supra1|Ahmad}}{{atL|2bxvv|4}}<br>
-R v Vickerson, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mgzp 2006 CanLII 2409] (ON SC){{perONSC|DiTomaso J}}{{at|18}}</ref>
+{{CanLIIRx|Vickerson|1mgzp|2006 CanLII 2409 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|DiTomaso J}}{{atL|1mgzp|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>
+see {{CanLIIRP|Grandinetti|4pvr|2003 ABCA 307 (CanLII)|178 CCC (3d) 449}}{{perABCA|per McFadyen JA}}{{atL|4pvr|84}}<br>
-R v Badhwar, [http://canlii.ca/t/23jrr 2009 CanLII 23890] (ON SC){{perONSC|McIsaac J}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRx|Badhwar|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>
+{{supra1|Ahmad}}{{atL|2bxvv|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>
+{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1rwtw|2007 CanLII 24094 (ONSC)|[2007] OJ No 2579 (SCJ)}}{{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>
+{{CanLIIRP|Ramanathan|2cz5q|2009 CanLII 86223 (ONSC)|, [2009] OJ No 6233 (ONSC)}}{{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>
+When considering the sitting position, the court should consider the fairness of differential treatment between a person in custody and those released from custody.<ref>
-Ahmad{{supra}} at para 7<br>
+{{supra1|Ahmad}}{{atL|2bxvv|7}}<br>
-Gervais{{supra}} at para 16<br>
+{{supra1|Gervais}}{{atL|1wd19|16}}<br>
 </ref>
-'''Constitutionality'''<br>
+; Constitutionality
 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>
+{{supra1|Gervais}}{{atL|1wd19|8}}<br>
-Vickerson{{supra}} at para 15 - no violation of presumption of innocence<br>
+{{supra1|Vickerson}}{{atL|1mgzp|15}} - no violation of presumption of innocence<br>
-Sinclair{{supra}}<br>
+{{supra1|Sinclair}}<br>
-R v JA, [http://canlii.ca/t/h306w 2017 ONSC 2043] (CanLII){{perONSC|O'Marra J}} at para 13<br>
+{{CanLIIRx|JA|h306w|2017 ONSC 2043 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|O'Marra J}}{{atL|h306w|13}}<br>
 </ref>
@@ Line 52: / Line 55: @@
 ==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>
+"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>
+{{CanLIIRP|Minoose|2d985|2010 ONSC 6129 (CanLII)|[2010] OJ No 4830}}{{perONSC|Kane J}}{{atL|2d985|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>
+{{CanLIIRx|Spagnoli and Shore|fmjc9|2011 ONSC 4656 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hambly J}}{{AtL|fmjc9|7}}<br>
-Minoose{{supra}} at para 33<br>
+{{supra1|Minoose}}{{atL|2d985|33}}<br>
-Rafferty{{supra}} at para 11</ref>
+{{supra1|Rafferty}}{{atL|fr9w8|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>
+see referenced in {{CanLIIRP|MT|257k5|2009 CanLII 43426 (ONSC)|84 WCB (2d) 644}}{{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>
+{{CanLIIRx|JA|h306w|2017 ONSC 2043 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|O'Marra J}}{{atL|h306w|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>
+{{ibid1|JA}}{{atL|h306w|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>
+{{CanLIIRP|Levogiannis|1frxq|1993 CanLII 47 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 475}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}{{atL|1frxq|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>
+{{CanLIIRP|Faid|fp6fk|1981 ABCA 139 (CanLII)|61 CCC (2d) 28}}{{perABCA|Harradence JA}}{{atp|40}}<br>
 </ref>
-'''Need to Consult with Counsel'''<br>
+; Need to Consult with Counsel
 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>
+{{CanLIIRx|Arsoniadis|1r8cz|2007 CanLII 13505 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Sproat J}}<br>
 </ref>
-'''Weapons'''<br>
+; Weapons
 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>
+e.g. {{CanLIIRx|Lehoux|24j8c|1997 CanLII 14559 (BC CA)}}{{perBCCA|Donald JA}} - accused obsessed with family court result attacks lawyer with weapon</ref>
-'''Burden'''<br>
+; Burden
-The onus is on the accused to establish that he should be permitted to sit at counsel table.<ref>
+The onus is on the accused to establish that he should be permitted to sit at the counsel table.<ref>
-R v Davis, [http://canlii.ca/t/fp125 2011 ONSC 5567] (CanLII){{perONSC| van Rensburg J}} at para 11<br>
+{{CanLIIRx|Davis|fp125|2011 ONSC 5567 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC| van Rensburg J}}{{atL|fp125|11}}<br>
 </ref>
-'''Factors'''<br>
+; Factors
 Factors have been suggested to determine whether to grant the request:<ref>
-Minoose{{supra}} at para 32<br>
+{{supra1|Minoose}}{{atL|2d985|32}}<br>
-see also R v GC, [http://canlii.ca/t/fxj2l 2013 ONSC 2904] (CanLII){{perONSC|O'Marra J}}
+see also {{CanLIIRP|GC|fxj2l|2013 ONSC 2904 (CanLII)|OJ No 2279}}{{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;
@@ Line 100: / Line 103: @@
 * 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>
+Security concerns include the safety of having the accused flanked by Sheriffs at the counsel table instead of the dock. <ref>
-e.g. Rafferty{{supra}}</ref>
+e.g. {{supra1|Rafferty}}</ref>
-The court can consider the likelihood that constant communication between counsel and accused may distract the jury.<ref>
+The court can consider the likelihood that constant communication between counsel and the accused may distract the jury.<ref>
-Arsoniadis{{Supra}} at para 11<br>
+{{supra1|Arsoniadis}}{{atL|1r8cz|11}}<br>
-R v McCarthy, [http://canlii.ca/t/fqfjl 2012 CanLII 10661] (NL SCTD){{perNLSC| Goodridge J}} at para 6<br>
+{{CanLIIRx|McCarthy|fqfjl|2012 CanLII 10661 (NLSCTD)}}{{perNLSC| Goodridge J}}{{atL|fqfjl|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>
+Where it is not practical to use the counsel table for the seating of the accused, it can be a compromise to set up a table in between the dock and the 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}}
+e.g.  {{CanLIIRP|Turner|2dxcs|2000 CanLII 28390 (NLSCTD)|, [2000] NJ No 379}}{{perNLSC|Dymond J}}
 </ref>
 {{reflist|2}}