Good afternoon to you.
As I said in my opening remarks, I think the balance has shifted too far one way. The public is feeling it. Most people who are in positions of elite institutions say, “Well, the public is wrong” or “They can't see what's right in front of their eyes or their ears.” I disagree with that. I think the public is onto something. I don't think it's unreasonable or harsh for a member of the public to not want to have to lock their door at night, to not want to have seven Ring cameras and six security cameras. I think the balance needs to go back somewhere towards the centre.
Right now, with regard to the bail courts, I'll say two things. One is that too many people have to wait too long to get bail. That's an answer that this committee may not like. There are certain people who should be out who have to wait two, three or four days because there are no courts or no justices. They just wait three or four days to get out, but they should have been released from the police station.
I believe your question is about somebody who's truly dangerous. When I keep hearing the term “presumed innocent”, which is a fair point—it's a great talking point—there has to be a difference, and I'll end my answer, perhaps, here. There's a difference between somebody who's presumed innocent—where the evidence against them stinks, it's “he said, she said” with no forensic evidence and they're not going to be convicted—and somebody who's presumed innocent but is on candid camera, who is on high-definition TV waving at the camera, saying, “I'm committing a crime”.
It's really important that the bail stage look at the strength of the Crown's case, not just on the tertiary ground but also at whether there is a real reason to keep this person in—a strong Crown case—because then there are also the individuals I'm concerned about, who have been in three nights too long and should be out. I think there should be more of this talked about at the bail stage.