According to the CBC report here Homolka’s lawyers made application for an injunction prohibiting media reports on certain details of her life, which was denied. They apparently plan to make a second application. Apparently they are following with a second application today. (Couple of notes: I’m on holidays, and don’t have access to Quicklaw from home (though I do get to post on the SDMB in the middle of the day at home, so that’s something) so I can’t review the judgment to add any more details. And, I’ve always chosen not to practice criminal law, so this is not my area of expertise.)
Though alice_in_wonderland suggested that she was declared a dangerous offender, that is not what actually occurred. In fact an application was made for an order under section 810 of the Criminal Code. This “peace bond” section in part reads as follows:
- (1) An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner or child or will damage his or her property.
Duty of justice
(2) A justice who receives an information under subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before him or before a summary conviction court having jurisdiction in the same territorial division.
(3) The justice or the summary conviction court before which the parties appear may, if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the person on whose behalf the information was laid has reasonable grounds for his or her fears,
(a) order that the defendant enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for any period that does not exceed twelve months, and comply with such other reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance, including the conditions set out in subsections (3.1) and (3.2), as the court considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the defendant; or
(b) commit the defendant to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months if he or she fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.
Per section 811, breaching the order could result in conviction and a maximum sentence of not more than two years.
Section 810 has continued to grow over the years giving expanded areas of application. However, the taking of this approach to dealing with Homolka was novel, forced by the deal made with her, and the fact that she has completed her entire sentence. Under section 810 the order that can be made can impose conditions that do not exceed a period of one year, as were the conditions applied to Homolka. My understanding is that recognizances under section 810 are not renewable, leaving a dilemma of how to deal with Homolka once the recognizance expires (assuming she does not breach it).
In contrast, the dangerous offender provisions of the Code in Part XXIV allow indefinite detention of convicted persons found to be dangerous offenders if the requirements are met. Per clauses 753(1)(a) and (b) the court may declare an offender as a dangerous offender if:
(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing
(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour,
(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour, or
(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint; or
(b) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender, by his or her conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he or she has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.
Unlike his ex-spouse, Homolka, Paul Bernardo has been declared a dangerous offender. I find it a toss up as to who is the more disturbing.